I believe we now have conclusive proof that Trump caused 1/6

The Rules of US Justice is encompased by the Rule of Law .. but nice try at deflection .. as is violating the principles of US justice OK .. another joke of a post .. in desperate attempt to avoid dealing with the fact that your position is a contradictory mess.

and then laughably you omit the part that even you realize is part of the rule of Law.. so try again.

2) Equal Justice Under the law .. How .. How mate .. How could this possibly apply here ? How many of the BLM protestors were charged with terrorism .. How many of any protests have been charged with terrorism .. for unarmed protestors who get out of hand and cause injury and property destruction.

 

Didn't change anything .. you trying to run away because your getting it handed to you .. desperate to avoid this reality.. .

You said
If they committed crimes that can be charged as terrorism -

The whole point here is that the Dems claim all the protestors and affiliates are terrorists - wanting the "committed crimes" to be charged as terrorism. Dems want to make the definition of terrorism include the Capital Riot. .. such that these folks can be charged with Terrorism..

and you agree with this .. "then they should be charged as terrorists"

Come on Mate .. Speak up .. do you agree that all involved in the Capital Riot are Terrorists .. and charged as such as the Blue hoard desires .. or not.

 

I'm sorry. I was taken in by yet another Trump hater who faked his own death, along with his subsequent burial, just to make the Bronze Deity look bad. When will I ever learn? [/satire]

 

The "Rules of Justice" is more of an international concept, but yes it encompass the "Rule of Law". My post was NOT a joke, I have been talking about U.S. Criminal Code which is what is applied when prosecuting a criminal case and sentencing a convicted criminal. HOW the **** can "my position", which has been consistently, that the insurrectionists of January 6th should be tried according to their crime and sentenced to the full limit applicable to that crime be contradictory? You're the one that introduced "terroist" and "kangaroo court" and "Blue Clown Show" into this discussion. I've tried to keep the discussion on topic while you've run all over the map with your hair on fire.

You've absolutely changed the original topic to whatever the hell it is you're yammering about now; as I proved by quoting our original post and reply.

"The Dems"? Who are "the Dems" that are claiming ALL the protestors AND affiliates (whoever they are) are terrorists? That's so broad an accusation it could be applied to anyone. And as I pointed out, the fact that, so far, the insurrectionists have been getting off easy. Nothing close to terrorism has been charged by this Democrat DOJ or Democrat Courts ... some of which have been tRump appointed Republican Judges; BTW. I don't think the definition of "Terrorism" has been changed a bit, and obviously, so far, none of the insurrectionists have been charged with terrorism, not even the guy that just got 5 years for attacking the Capitol Police.

ALL I've said is IF the insurrectionists committed crimes that fall withing the US Code of Justice definition of Terrorism, then they should be tried and sentenced accordingly. You're the one with your hair on fire trying to conflate that to EVERYONE and EVERYTHING and EVERY DEMOCRAT BLUE HOARD SOB; not that you've shown any bias or anything.

I'm only continuing this discussion because it's fun watching you make a fool of yourself. I throw out a bit of bate and you swallow it hook line and sinker. I have to admit that while I was trying to fairly respond to your accusations you had me going for awhile. But when I realized that you were a RW fanatic I've just been toying with you like a cat with a mouse.

 

No, it's not, and it's downright risible that you would suggest otherwise.

Pure conjecture.

And they told you this?

Otherwise, again, pure conjecture.

Not a fact, pure conjecture, and I’ve already answered that question. They were his supporters so naturally they felt he might be able to influence them.

Now, let’s address what are actually the facts: The Capitol Police is in charge of security at the Capitol. Why did it fail to do its job on 1/6 when it has such an excellent record of controlling crowds over the years?

VERY abnormal...

 

John Hinckley Jr. shot President Reagan in 1981 because he thought that was what Jodie Foster wanted. Are you convinced that Jodie Foster caused the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan?

 

Did Jodie Foster ever say, "I will march with you?!"

 

The police's issues is a minor issue compared to the attack on the capitol.

I'll let the police solve their problem internally, as most police forces do.

The more important item is what the committee is concentrating on.

If you want to ramble on about the police, don't waste your time.

 

If 50 attackers tell us that they believed Trump invited them, it was because he told them (paraphrased) to "go to the capitol building and fight like hell because if you don't fight like hell, you'll lose your country". That's in the ballpark of plausible interpretation for the invitation. What developed was the momentum of a large group getting out of hand causing people to get caught up into it..

There is nothing that Jodie Foster said whereby a plausible interpretation would be that Hinckley should shoot Reagan. In this example, there is no 'large group getting out of hand to get people caught up into it"

Your comparison fails.

 

No, it isn't. The worst of the rioters weren't watching TV awaiting his instructions. If Trump had gone down in person he would have got some to leave, others not. The secret service would never have allowed him to go in there.

I wonder if there is anything that Trump haters will not blame him for? Smash and grab is his fault because the underlying cause of lawlessness
Is Covid and the cause of Covid is ...

Anyone?

Beuller?

The answer is ... Donald Trump, of course. Therefore he is really the root cause of Smash and grab.

 

Indeed the topic is the Blue kangaroo clown show - - since you have no material to refute evidence provided for claim .. you cry "you have changed topic.

The topic is the Blue Kangaroo clown show .. evidence of which is Blue claiming "Terrorism"

Biden for one

Was Biden and the Blue clown show that did the conflation . it is these clowns who want the "definition of Terrorism" to include all the protestors and affiliates.

I'

No need to project your failings onto me mate. You are the one who does not realize that your positions contradict .... well .. of course you do - but instead of admitting your failure .. do this nonsensical dance of denial - crying "This is not the Topic" after your responses to this topic were shown to be in contradition.

 

You're being disputatious because he doesn't buy your analysis based on some text messages from Sean Hannity to the Chief of Staff.

Trump could have done more, but he told no one to enter the Capitol building and certainly told no one to FORCE his way in, causing property damage and death in the process.

Could he have tried harder? Of course. But we can't reasonably leap from there to where you want to go.

I notice that little "paraphrase" qualifier you slipped into your "quotation." Lazy and dishonest analysis. One would almost think you have an agenda or something.

 

Here is what Trump actually said, as opposed to the dishonest "paraphrase" above:

"So we are going to--we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give--the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything, not even one vote but we are going to try--give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help, we're try--going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."

 

"Terrorism" says Blue .. these unarmed protestors - and for encouraging these protestors to "walk down Pennsylvania Avenue" Carrot top is also a terrorist.

Addressing a group of group of unarmed protestors is now complicity in Terrorism - according to these Blue Authoriatarian wing nuts.

 

Wow, amazing.

 

Sometimes I think we've all gone insane. Up is down, silence is violence, violence is speech,, bad is good, women with penises are women, "Period!!"

Other times I think the madness is restricted to the fringes, but the fringes get constant press because it sells pharmaceuticals and car insurance.

 

Well said...whatever it is you said.

 

Why don't you say something profound for us?

 

All my posts are profound.

 

Your premise is that because there is no specific language ordering an attack in his speech, he is therefore not responsible to any degree for the attack.

That is a false premise, it obfuscates a greater truth, which is: That...

Telling 74 million americans, for over a year, week after week, at every rally, on every appearance on television, that the only way democrats can win is to rig the election, before any ballot was ever cast, that democrats are stealing the election, that they are committing fraud, that they intend on destroying America, a narrative so wrong, so untruthful, a heinous rhetoric to a degree of which was hitherto unheard of by any candidate in history, it is not unreasonable to conclude such acts led to the attack on the capitol.

It created the mantra, the welling anger, the volcanic juggernaut that erupted on Jan 6, a directed mission to 'stop the steal' and resulted in millions in damage and 5 - 7 deaths.

Trump's continuous incendiary acts, comments, mentions, speeches, on 1/6, and back covering over a period of many months, of which the predominant message was 'democrats stole the election' and that lie began before the first ballot was cast, inculcated in the minds and hearts of his follows long and hard, to such an extent, that it caused a welling up of what can rightfully be characterized as a juggernaut of rage, erupting in volcanic fashion on 1/6, resulting in several deaths and millions of worth of property damaged, some property stolen, and trespassing of the offices of congresspersons and senators and the terrorizing of persons thereby, and the delay of several hours of the constitutional proceedings. And, to add insult to injury, for over 3 hours, he failed to act, he should have produced that video telling his flock to stop house before. His failure to act ( which would have been a no-brainer for any other President) plus all his other acts, including his many efforts to subvert the election ( not mentioned here) have violated criminal laws, and was clearly a dereliction of duty.

Now we have the truth, no 'leap' is needed, as the bridge from a year or so ago until the attack is dutifully crossed.

 

See #471

Your premise is that because there is no specific language ordering an attack in his speech, he is therefore not responsible to any degree for the attack.

That is a false premise, it obfuscates a greater truth, which is: That...

Telling 74 million americans, for over a year, week after week, at every rally, on every appearance on television, that the only way democrats can win is to rig the election, before any ballot was ever cast, that democrats are stealing the election, that they are committing fraud, that they intend on destroying America, a narrative so wrong, so untruthful, a heinous rhetoric to a degree of which was hitherto unheard of by any candidate in history, it is not unreasonable to conclude such acts led to the attack on the capitol.

It created the mantra, the welling anger, the volcanic juggernaut that erupted on Jan 6, a directed mission to 'stop the steal' and resulted in millions in damage and 5 - 7 deaths.

Trump's continuous incendiary acts, comments, mentions, speeches, on 1/6, and back covering over a period of many months, of which the predominant message was 'democrats stole the election' and that lie began before the first ballot was cast, inculcated in the minds and hearts of his follows long and hard, to such an extent, that it caused a welling up of what can rightfully be characterized as a juggernaut of rage, erupting in volcanic fashion on 1/6, resulting in several deaths and millions of worth of property damaged, some property stolen, and trespassing of the offices of congresspersons and senators and the terrorizing of persons thereby, and the delay of several hours of the constitutional proceedings. And, to add insult to injury, for over 3 hours, he failed to act, he should have produced that video telling his flock to stop house before. His failure to act ( which would have been a no-brainer for any other President) plus all his other acts, including his many efforts to subvert the election ( not mentioned here) have violated criminal laws, and was clearly a dereliction of duty.

 

Now you're claiming Trump is a god, or that Trump is clairvoyant?

What would you have Trump do?

Should Trump have projected his image in the sky over the Capitol as a sign to stop demonstrators from entering the Capitol building, or do you think it would have been enough for Trump to project his image on the exterior wall of the Capitol building?

Or do you think Trump could have sent a mental mind blast via clairvoyance to all the demonstrators?

You've never been on a battlefield, so no doubt you're totally clueless about the length of time it takes a decision by a corps/division commander to filter down to the company/troop/battery commanders.

I'm guessing in your Mouse-Click World you think Trump could have just clicked on a live-streaming video of the demonstrators and they would have instantly stopped.

The real question here is why you believe Trump has god-like supernatural powers.

 

What I would have him do is what he did a video telling everyone to stop and that is what occurred however it was too little too late

 

Its called free speech mate .. something Blue Authoritarians abhor I know.

The false premise and obfuscation of truth going on here is the Biden-Blue clownshow claiming that free speech is "Terrorism" in a fit of raging Orwellian doublespeak.

 

"Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used that was established by the SC in Brandenburg v Ohio. Under that standard speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.