Tucker Carlson starts to divulge the Capitol video tapes

WRONG! I just went over all of the posts, by re-posting them, and giving the page numbers. You have been talking about Sicknick, since about page 26 or so. And for even longer, I have been asking what difference that makes, to the overall J6 narrative. So it had been 17 or 18 pages, that you had been avoiding my question. Please recheck my very thorough post (and compare the actual thread), before making such bogus claims, as you are, here.

You did, though, give a sort of response:

chris155au said: ↑
Who is out there saying that the fact that there is no evidence that Sicknick died as a result on the Jan 6 events, means that it was not an attack on the Capitol, or a riot/violent protest?
<End>

But you have since recanted the suggestions of your opinion. That is, it is now you, who is "saying that...Jan 6...was not an attack on the Capitol, or a riot," or even a (mostly) violent protest. You now have called it, a "mostly peaceful protest." Therefore, you had either been insincere, when you posted the above reply, on page 27, or the Tucker propaganda has gone above and beyond, to prove my argument, by totally changing your opinion in just two weeks (your post is dated March 10th)--

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ol-video-tapes.608839/page-27#post-1074080927

 

Yes, I have been talking about Sicknick, but how is that me asking questions? Remember, you said that you "have been waiting for about 20 pages" for [me] to explain the point of [my] questions."

There's no point in continuing this discussion if you're not even going to have the decency to read my replies in full.
Given what you say here, CLEARLY you have missed my second last reply section in my last reply: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ol-video-tapes.608839/page-44#post-1074110194

 

Boy, you miss posts for FUN! Either that, or you're still typing!

 

Ludicrously bad answer. What you are not describing, is not a single thing, but two separate things: a peaceful protest, beside a riot. Guess what-- when people talk about J6, or the attack on the Capitol, they are referring primarily to the riot. And anyone who was inside the Capitol building, was a part of that riot, even if you have tape of a few moments of that time, during which they were not being violent. How do you know what they'd done before, or after, the tiny bit of footage you saw? At best you could believe, based on only scraps of evidence, that there were some non-violent rioters, along with those who'd forced their way into the Capitol, smashed windows, attacked and injured police, and stole government property along the way, in their hunt for the politicians on their hit lists.

 

Correct. Just like with certain BLM protests, there was a peaceful protest beside a riot.

Gues what -- when people talk about the 2020 BLM protests, or the violence of some of them, they are referring primarily to the protest. Double standard.

You're assuming that they were ALL violent at some point.

No I do not. Do you? I'm not making any claims about whether or not they were ALL violent. Many were. Many weren't.

 

No, not double standard, as I already answered that with a link to estimates of between 15 & 26 MILLION PARTICIPANTS IN THE BLM PROTESTS. That is why other estimates say 97% or more, "peaceful" protests. So then I put the same challenge to you to show that the proportions of peaceful to violent/illegal were anywhere close to comparable (meaning like 26,000+ peaceful protestors, outside of the Capitol) to BLM. And, of course, as usual, I got nothing but crickets from your end. Here's a reminder of my post, answering your call for something to support actual numbers of arrests versus protestors, and a reminder of the opportunity for you to prove the the comparability of the two, which you have failed to do. But hey, sure, keep making the f****** baseless, unsupported comparison-- after all, that's the only thing you can do, since you're not considering facts, in order to come up with an opinion, but rather starting with an opinion, which the facts just don't support.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ol-video-tapes.608839/page-44#post-1074110065

I don't have to assume that, because I know the Capitol was overrun by a violent mob (as does anyone who doesn't have for brains), and I know that the Capitol was closed to visitors, so anyone inside was there illegally. Here's a quick question: you see somebody breaking into a house. You follow behind that person. Do you not think you are now subject to arrest for breaking & entering, as well (even if you only walked through a doorway, that someone else forced open)?

So I already know they have broken the law, as part of that attacking throng. And you feel that a minute of video, give or take, not showing them breaking or stealing anything, or assaulting anyone, proves they were just in the wrong place, at the wrong time? LOL. And I'll ask again, WTF does that have to do with Tucker having exclusive access to all the video (the subject of the thread)? Are you interested in the truth, or not? If so, what possible case do you have, that we get a truer truth with Tucker alone having access, than with all media allowed to see the material? That argument is illegitimate, on its face.

 

Has Carlson released any more videos? Just curious.

 

Not that I am aware of. If there was anything further, it was a big nothingburger, otherwise I would have heard about it from the conservative commentators I listen to.

 

Yep, and here is my reply (last reply section) which you did not reply to:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ol-video-tapes.608839/page-44#post-1074110078

I made no such proportionality claim.

If by "crickets", you mean I replied, but you either missed or ignored it, then you are 100% correct!

I'm sorry, you must be getting me confused with someone else. I made no such "call."

As you should know by now from my responses earlier in this reply, I already replied to that. You did reply, but only by quoting ONE of my reply sections, in this reply of yours: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ol-video-tapes.608839/page-44#post-1074110084

100% correct, it absolutely was overrun by a violent mob.

100% correct, but being there illegally does not mean VIOLENT. Some of them could easily claim ignorance of the fact that it was closed to visitors.

I would be guilty of trespassing obviously.

Nope, it just further proves that they were not part of a "deadly insurrection." Interestingly, you have never once referred to it as that, so perhaps we have common ground here!

Oh absolutely. The truth is ALL that matters.

We DO NOT have a truer truth with Tucker alone having access compared to if all media had access. But for the moment, this is all that we have. And I will GLADLY change my perspective with additional evidence.

 

You just love to make those specious, semantic arguments, don't you-- and also to change people's words? I never said, that you had said, the proportions were "exactly the same;" but you have, nonetheless, compared the two. That suggests that you believe they are "comparable." FYI, that implies that there would be a rough similarity. That is what I am calling a crock of bull. If we analogize violence with fat content, it is as if you are trying to claim an essential sameness between low-fat milk, and buttermilk (perhaps, even chevre-- soft goat-cheese). These things, even if they are all dairy products, are too different, to use them interchangeably, in view of the large portions, we are considering.

If you cannot show a reasonable similarity, in the proportions of the protestors who were violent, then the BLM protests have no place in this discussion of Jan. 6. Since you are the one wanting to use the analogy, it is you who needs to show that it is appropriate. Unless & until you demonstrate a similarity in the levels of violence, proportionate to the number participating, all I need do is call your unsupported analogy, "bunk."

Here you are, EQUATING the two things:

chris155au said: ↑
Well they called the 2020 riots "mostly peaceful", which by your standards is "presenting a false narrative", given that you disagree with Carlson saying that the J6 protests was mostly peaceful.

Can only be a "double standard," if the two things are similar enough, to have the same standard applied. This idea flies in the face of the evidence.

No, I'm not. There is no rule, AFAIK, that every participant in a violent riot must, themself, be violent. If they were in the Capitol building, that makes them part of the (overall) violent mob. The mob, you admit was there, at the same time:

Before continuing, let me correct a mistake of yours. I'd offered the analogy of your seeing someone break into a house, and your just following behind, & walking around inside, while the house was being burgled. I'd asked if you didn't think that, in that circumstance, you could still be charged with breaking and entering, and this was your answer:

Wrong-- here though, is an obvious error in your thinking. If you were walking around inside of a house, during the commission of a burglary, you could and very likely might, be charged with burglary, just for being there. You would need be lucky, to get a DA who believed your story, that you had been so foolish, as to follow behind someone who, so obviously, was breaking the law-- with no intention, yourself, of doing anything but looking around. Even if you didn't get charged with burglary, however, your illegal entry into the home, would mean a "B. & E." charge, not simple trespassing.

This is important to understand, in my contending that all those who, I would include, were circled tightly around the Capitol-- but at the very least, all those who'd entered the building, regardless of what they did, once inside (unless they were trying to get their fellow rioters to leave)-- were part of the same assault, even if some were more violent participants than others. I am not saying that all should be charged equally, but all those who'd swarmed the Capitol were, at a minimum, part of an effort to "obstruct an official proceeding" in the Congress, namely the accepting of the electoral votes and, with their counting, the certification of the President-elect.

Hard to believe anyone could be that stupid. How could they have possibly not noticed the lines of police, trying to hold back the crowd, behind the rows of barricades; or the smashing of windows, at the Capitol itself, or the fighting with police on the steps and doorways-- you know, by the "violent mob," who "absolutely overran it?" Once a person sees any of that sort of thing, one assumes the consequences, by staying with that group, as they storm a building.

It seems clear that all went with the intention, as vague and undefined as it may have been in some of their minds, to intimidate members of the government, through a show of FORCE. This goes beyond "protesting."

 

You did not say that I said that, but it seemed that you were under the impression that this is what I believed, because I couldn't think of any other reason why you would discuss the proportions.

No, if I 'compare' two things, this does not mean that I am saying that they are "comparable." I can compare apples to oranges without saying that they are comparable. And I can say that they are both fruit. Just like I can compare the 2020 BLM riots to J6 without saying that they are comparable. And I can say that they were both mostly peaceful protests.

Here is your problem: You have not presented an argument to support your claim that J6 was mostly violent.

In order for what to be said?

I actually don't recall seeing ANY footage of rioting IN the building. Do you?

"Even if some were more violent participants than others." Oh, so they WERE all violent, it's just that some were more violent than others!

"Swarmed the Capitol." It seems that you're not specifically talking about those who entered the building, so how were the peaceful people standing outside the whole time obstructing anything?

I'm not convinced that those who were far enough behind in the crowd would have had a view of all of this. But you could be right. Who knows. Anyway, it's not important to this discussion. But you are obviously correct that anyone who viewed all of this would have known that it was FAR from open to visitors.

Alright, fair point. Here is a challenge: Do you believe that all of the NON-violent protesters involved in the 2020 BLM protests, were all PEACEFUL? Did NON-violent protests ever go "beyond protesting?"

 

DEFinning said: ↑
If they were in the Capitol building, that makes them part of the (overall) violent mob.

This is precisely what I had meant, when I'd referred to your specious, semantic arguments, while simultaneously changing my words. As all can see, I used the words "violent mob," which were actually the same words that you had used, in that previous reply of yours--

chris155au said: ↑
100% correct, it absolutely was overrun by a violent mob.

But, for some reason, you are now going to play with the word "riot," instead? I certainly did see footage of a violent mob, IN the building. So what is the purpose of your attempt to make a distinction, between this and a "riot?" Not only is it an utterly pointless point-- a poor attempt at, I guess, deflection-- but a losing point for you, even if you win. That is, I was only using the word riot for your sake, as it is my custom when that is the term the other person has used. But to my mind, the word "attack" is a far more accurate term than "riot." So I will give you the point that we did not see whatever it is that you are alleging to meet some arbitrary, personal definition of "rioting," because, that means we can both use, instead, my term, and refer to it not as a riot, but as an assault or attack on the Capitol. Is that better?

 

Yeah I know that I said that, but I was really referring to the violent mob breaking their way into the building after breaking through the police. But once they were in there, I was thinking that perhaps that's where the violence ended. I do now recall the Babbitt shooting footage, in which people could be seen destroying the doors to get through. But when it comes to attacking police, I don't recall any of that inside the building. Anyway, it's not important to the discussion.

I'm not making that distinction, I'm just saying that it seems that the lion share of the rioting took place outside.

It is better I think, because that would also incorporate all of the unbelievable damage done to the building. Whereas "riot" would seem to limit it to physical engagement with police.

 

You're desperate to justify Babbitt's stupidity & unlawful breaking and entry into the Capitol building.

(1) The cop with the gun can be clearly seen through the window.

(2) Babbitt's MAGA comrades had repeatedly warned her "There's a gun!" - "He's got a gun!", yet she ignored them as she tried to climb through the broken window.

(3) Ask yourself:

* Would Babbitt have been shot had she not tried to climb through the window?
* Would she have been shot if she didn't enter the building?
* What did the MAGA mob expect would happen after first clashing violently with cops on the outside, then unlawfully breaking in & entering a building filled with armed security cops who were both afraid & knew they were outnumbered?
* Do you think the cop that shot Babbitt was afraid for his life and/or afraid for the lives/safety of those he was there to protect?
* Do you think Babbitt's spouse & family believe that her death was worth appeasing the will of fuhrer Trump?

 

Well. Sometimes I need to take a break from the persistent drone of political discourse & debate.

 

I'd say Biden has perhaps become more 'moderate' compared to his early days. He's still a corporate/establishment Democrat, but has some progressive leanings. But that's neither here nor there. People voted for him not because they necessarily liked him, but only as a means to an end - to remove Trump.

 

In a court of law circumstantial evidence is admissible in a criminal trial, and a defendant can be convicted based solely on circumstantial evidence.

"Both direct and circumstantial evidence is legitimate proof that someone committed a crime. In fact, they are common in all state and federal criminal courts. It is a fact that somebody could be convicted of a crime based only on circumstantial proof."

It's important to establish connections & links in any court case. But of course I'm not aware of all the available evidence the authorities had on hand, as I haven't looked into it, such as text/phone & social media records, emails, etc. that could be used as corroborating evidence. The evidence of close interaction between right-wing militant groups and those in Trump's orbit only adds to the circumstantial evidence, coupled with direct evidence.

Why shouldn't they take it seriously when concerns about this chatter were raised by them prior to J6? I don't know if the authorities were alerted by Twitter itself (although I know they did get tips & warnings), but if they were they obviously didn't take it seriously. If they had they would've been better prepared for the J6 crowd - unless code words or other means were used to conceal the date of the event.

In a court of law one should be willing to look at all the details for leads that could point to other clues/further leads.

Other than common sense, there is the following:

Trump said he knew Jan. 6 crowd members had weapons, ex-White House aide testified
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/28/1108...ers-had-weapons-ex-white-house-aide-testified

Jan. 6 Protest Organizers Say They Participated in ‘Dozens’ of Planning Meetings With Members of Congress and White House Staff
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...-organizers-met-congress-white-house-1245289/

Trump knew the mob at his rally were armed & clothed for combat and incited them to march to the Capitol. He knew that violence was likely to happen (unless Pence were to perform some sort of magical feat, which was unlikely).

The march was legal, but not the intent behind it. The crowd carried weapons and wore combat gear & clothing, so we know they didn't intend on simply standing around and worshiping Trump. So yes, it was instigated - and this was proven by what eventually happened. And you think Trump had no idea this would happen? Did they build that hangman's contraption on the fly? LOL

Too much circumstantial evidence points to Trump's foreknowledge of the events that would take place.

‘Their plan is to literally kill people’: Newly released emails show Secret Service was aware of plans for violence on Jan 6
Agents shared social media messages and law enforcement tips with talk of violence in days before Capitol attack
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-service-emails-jan-6-committee-b2202387.html

You don't think Trump (the central figure) was being fed this same information secretly by Flynn & others in his close circle? You don't think it odd that the rally and subsequent march to the Capitol by an armed mob was perfectly timed?

Trump knew there was no fraud and knew there’d be violence – he deserves to answer for his actions
Wide-ranging under-oath testimony gives us a glimpse into the former president’s state of mind and bolsters evidence of criminal intent
Trump knew he lost and declared victory anyway. Trump knew his election fraud claims were false and exploited them to pressure elected officials anyway. Trump knew his pressure campaign against Vice President Mike Pence was illegal and pursued it anyway. Trump knew his supporters were armed and threatening violence, and he told them to go to the Capitol anyway. What this amounted to was a 21st-Century attempted coup by an American president.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-capitol-riot-hearing-subpoena-b2202475.html

I believe Trump meant to say these exact words because it's not in any way a denouncement against the behavior of the Proud Boys. Instead, it comes across as - "Be patient, my loyal Proud Boys. I know you're ready and eager to do my bidding. But it's not time just yet. So stand by and await my order."

The "stand by" part is the most telling of Trump's message to the Proud Boys. He talks to them like he's their commandant, knowing they would listen. And you still believe Trump had no foreknowledge?

 

Well, their goal IS to eradicate abortion, right?

'Accessory to murder' is already a separate crime connected to murder, so why wouldn't they want to apply the same crime with abortion - which they consider 'murder'?

I don't recall any so-called 'wokesters' breaking into govt buildings in an attempt to overturn a presidential election & re-install a dictator wannabe, or suppressing voters, or wanting to impose martial law to confiscate voting machines, or wanting to make abortion a capital offense, or trying to impose Christian fundamentalist 'values'.

MAGA has no regard for the law, is militant, promotes hate & racism, is pro-war, pro-defense spending, pro-corporation, anti-environment, anti-green energy, anti-social programs, anti-progressive, and has no limit to the amount of corruption it tolerates. By contrast, the generally accepted definition of 'wokism' is simply a belief that there are systemic injustices in America and the need to address them.

Which group do you think is more likely to create problems for the nation?

Now, about the items you listed:

* Equity agenda: Liberals have, for decades, been pushing for equal opportunity - not equity.

* Critical race theory: You easily fall prey to the myths MAGA/Trump/DeSantis wants you believe about this. Here, educate yourself:
https://www.civicway.org/saving-democracy/critical-race-theory-fact-versus-fiction/

* Racial gender ideology: WTF is that?

* Support for mutilating kids: This has nothing to do with 'wokism'. Youth gender surgery is an issue between parents, their children, and healthcare workers.

Here, put aside right-wing sensationalism for a moment and educate yourself about what really goes on:

https://www.cedars-sinai.org/blog/affirming-care-transgender-youth.html

Further reading:

The GOP’s misguided ‘woke police’
"...the war on woke is not confined to racism. DeSantis and Texas’ Republican Gov. Greg Abbott are prominent in a related movement to ban state business with and investments in companies that adopt ESG policies — in other words, commitments to improve the environment, society, and governance in the U.S."
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3816964-the-gops-misguided-woke-police/

And finally, the Right constantly attacks what it calls 'wokism' and uses it as a rallying cry to muster public support, but can't even define what 'woke' means. Watch Bethany Mandel embarrass herself when asked this question. (Bethany Shondark Mandel is a conservative American columnist and political and cultural commentator who writes for Deseret News and Ricochet, and co-authored Stolen Youth: How Radicals Are Erasing Innocence and Indoctrinating a Generation.)

https://twitter.com/SimplyRedHQ/status/1635987651265196033

That's easy to answer. Name a single tenet the GOP opposes that right-wing extremist/hate/white supremacy/white nationalist/militia groups are for. Like I said, the GOP is the far right's only political ally and propaganda mouthpiece on Capitol Hill. There is no other party that's willing to give these crackpots an audience.

Just a sampling:

Far-right extremism dominates the GOP. It didn’t start — and won’t end — with Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...nates-gop-it-didnt-start-wont-end-with-trump/

Is Pennsylvania losing it? Hate groups proliferate as state GOP descends into MAGA paranoia
https://www.salon.com/2022/03/03/is...iferate-as-state-descends-into-maga-paranoia/

GOP’s links to extremism surface in congressional primary
https://apnews.com/article/2022-mid...nd-ethnicity-be616cae0967ca6ee9c78ac1efee8e31

22% of Republican State Lawmakers Nationwide Joined Far-Right Facebook Groups, Study Finds
https://www.route-fifty.com/health-...-have-joined-far-right-facebook-group/366983/

Hate makes a comeback in Idaho, this time with political support
https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/08...ck-in-idaho-this-time-with-political-support/

Republicans to field more than 100 far-right candidates this year
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/02/republicans-100-far-right-candidates-2022

White Nationalists, Other Republicans Brace for ‘Total War’
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/12/11/white-nationalists-other-republicans-brace-total-war

Illinois GOP Official Affiliates with Extremist Groups & Shares Racist Posts
https://www.splcenter.org/presscent...ial-affiliates-extremist-groups-shares-racist

Republican officials keep stoking white supremacist tropes — and we’re reaping the result
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...premacist-tropes-and-were-reaping-the-result/

How the 'replacement' theory went mainstream on the political right
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/17/1099...theory-went-mainstream-on-the-political-right

Jan. 6 Protest Organizers Say They Participated in ‘Dozens’ of Planning Meetings With Members of Congress and White House Staff
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...-organizers-met-congress-white-house-1245289/

Wife of Supreme Court Justice Causes Chaos on Capitol Hill
https://www.ourbettertoday.org/post/wife-of-supreme-court-justice-causes-chaos-on-capitol-hill

Would Obama's supporters have rampaged the Capitol if he had asked them to? Obama was very popular & well respected, but he wasn't a cult leader, and didn't incite blind loyalty & insanity in his followers like Trump did. Only Trump could incite his followers to commit violence & even murder.

And don't think I'm endorsing Obama. Just pointing out an observation.

You're confusing popularity with being a cult leader.

Obama was a popular candidate at the time not because of who he was (basically an unknown), but because he was black. By contrast, no one paid much attention to Trump until his stint on The Apprentice show, just as Reagan's appeal was attributed to his fame as an actor. But none achieved cult leader status, except one - and that person was Trump.

Holy Jim Jones, Bat Man! Someone is crying because the first black president in the US got elected! Call the cops everyone - Obama's a cult leader! LOL

Has it ever occurred to you that some people may have been crying because the first black president in the history of a former heavy slave-owning nation had just been elected? Perhaps they were overcome with emotion by how much things have changed for the better? I'll just bet many cried when the Civil Rights Act was passed & segregation was abolished as well.

LOL @ "on what charges?"

Take your pick. LOL

Trump's niece (a clinical psychologist) wrote a tell-all book about her uncle Donald. Her book confirms what many only discovered only later during Trump's presidency - that Trump is a severely disturbed & psychologically damaged, malignant narcissist with habitual criminal tendencies.

Trump belongs in an institution, not the Oval Office. He needs serious psychiatric help. And I'm not saying this as an insult.

Nope. Trump's a one-man crime wave who committed a litany of violations during office.

Note: The following is a laundry list of criminal misconduct by Trump - and it doesn't even include his pre- and post-POTUS crimes:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...ring-record-of-uncharged-criminal-misconduct/

 

Of course not. Any contingency of troops would've all died at the hands of the Taliban. How long you think they would've lasted without the addition of more troops & air support?

They should've landed many more battalions & provided air support during the entirety of the operation until such time as the evacuation was complete, even if it took months to complete. Leaving a 'contingency' behind makes zero sense. I believe the Pentagon wanted to leave a contingency because they didn't want to admit to total failure after nearly 20 years in Afghanistan & $trillions spent - and nothing to show for it. They should've learned from Russia's experience.

Duh - That's what I've been saying all this time. So now you understand how poorly the operation was planned out by the Generals. Air support was crucial to allow time needed to evacuate everyone - plus they needed more than just 3 battalions on the ground for the operation.

The mistake was in over-estimating the strength (or will?) of the Afghan security forces.

LOL - If Trump had been president, the GOP wouldn't even have conducted an investigation & hearing on the evacuation. Trump would've called it a "perfect operation" and would've thrown a tantrum if anyone wanted to look into it.

I was speaking of unwarranted investigations/hearings. The Russia probe/Mueller report was warranted, even if it caused further political division.

No. But taxpayer money shouldn't be wasted. It's the FBI's job to investigate. And part of Congress' job is to investigate, but not on frivolous matters that serve only to bolster one's party. Look what Kevin McCarthy & the GOP have been trying to do. They wanted Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg to testify before Congress - and for no reason other than to hold up the prosecution of fuhrer Trump & to aggrandize their party.

Mueller's report listed no less than 11 incidents of obstruction of justice by Trump - which is an impeachable crime. Plus, 32 individuals connected to Trump were indicted. Trump avoided prosecution only because he was a sitting president. Mueller stated to Congress that he'd charge the president if he weren't in office, and also that had he been confident that Trump committed no crimes, he would've stated so. Trump was also impeached but avoided being removed from office because the GOP controlled the Senate. As far as Russian interference with the election, this was confirmed throughout the report. However, Mueller's report couldn't confirm an overt Trump-Russia collusion, but at the same time didn't exonerate Trump.

Not quite.

Before the Grifter in Chief was sworn into office, he was urged to fully divest from his eponymous company, which comprised hundreds of businesses. But he ignored those calls & retained ownership of his business. He then placed his holdings in a trust to hold assets for his benefit, and was able to withdraw money from the trust at any time without the public's knowledge. His company, plus the addition of profitable opportunities that arose because of his presidency, brought him and his family billions in profit - a gross violation of the emoluments clause.

Profiting off the Presidency: Trump’s Violations of the Emoluments Clauses
President Donald Trump has been violating the Constitution since noon on January 20, 2017. His decision in the months prior to his inauguration to retain ownership and control of his sprawling business empire—a move that went against both long-standing historical practice and the advice of career government ethics officials—put him at odds with the Constitution’s original anti-corruption provisions the moment he was sworn in. Generally, these anti-corruption provisions, the so-called Emoluments Clauses, prohibit the president from receiving any profit, gain, or advantage from any foreign or domestic government. Impeachment, as outlined by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65, is a political remedy (though not the only remedy) for a president’s egregious violations of these prohibitions.

It is worth reiterating that the emoluments clauses are our country’s original anti-corruption laws. They are written into the document that created our government and defined our system of law. President Trump’s corruption has been one of the defining stories of his presidency and has begun to normalize levels of corrupt and unethical behavior that we have not seen in decades—if ever.

The Framers were unambiguous in this respect. Impeachment is a proper remedy for egregious violations of the emoluments clauses’ prohibitions on accepting things of value from prohibited sources.
https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/...-trumps-violations-of-the-emoluments-clauses/

Trump’s Business Hauled In $2.4 Billion During Four Years He Served As President
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danale...years-he-served-as-president/?sh=6662970d10c0

Ka-Ching - Donald Trump is raking in big bucks from emoluments foreign and domestic
And who is footing the bill for the lawyers defending Trump's ability to turn a buck (or millions of them) off of his office? Why the U.S. taxpayers are. Of course.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...ing-from-the-presidency-let-us-count-the-ways

Forbes Estimates China Paid Trump At Least $5.4 Million Since He Took Office, Via Mysterious Trump Tower Lease
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danale...mysterious-trump-tower-lease/?sh=24c26910ed11

China grants 18 trademarks in 2 months to Trump, daughter
https://apnews.com/article/north-am...ivanka-trump-0a3283036d2f4e699da4aa3c6dd01727

Ivanka Trump Wins China Trademarks, Then Her Father Vows to Save ZTE
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/business/ivanka-trump-china-trademarks.html

Kushner Family Stands to Get $400 Million from a Chinese Firm in 'Unusually Favorable' Deal
https://time.com/4700612/jared-kushner-anbang-deal/

How Don Jr., Ivanka, and Eric Trump Have Profited Off Their Dad's Presidency
https://www.gq.com/story/trump-kids-profit-presidency

And lest we forget the following embarrassing stunt during our Clown in Chief's tenure in office:

 

Ask yourself ..... would we be having this conversation about January 6 if the security at the capitol was adequate with the forewarnings, and the guard that were authorized and fencing put in place... tell us how different our world would be.. Ashli Babbitt would be living a normal life..

Funny how this was the scene the day after and not the day before... The National Guard deployed over 6,000 guardsmen to D.C., after.... the "optics" changed all of a sudden...

 

Now you are just making it up....
no one personally took Babbitt to the left side of the hall to look through the side windows and said "He's got a gun" .....she was a 5'2" women in a crowd of 6 foot men and remained on the right side of the hall..... prove me wrong

She literally would have had to climb over a pile of furniture to get into the hall... Byrd was crouched in a hidden ambush position, who then sprang forward from hiding to murder Ashli in an ambush, when non-lethal weapons were available, without a warning to her. We know that because the other officers in the hall gave statements to that affect... ........all ...........except.................... Michael Byrd..... he gave a statement to no one in the CP .... but he did use the "court of public opinion" to state his case to the public on TV but not to the CP investigators.

But we would know a lot more if we had Capitol security footage from Byrd's side of the doors... would you happen to have a link to that?

 

@JCS
Nice pictures... but you left out the National security issues on Ivanka's laptop... can you show us Ivanka emails and text? Maybe we can dig up her selling out her country to foreign adversary's... like China. I have some emails and text of a family member of a president that did that, and I'd be happy to share them...

 

It should also be noted that in the video from the rioters side congressional people are seen fleeing across the hallway behind the last guy with his gun clearly out. He was in fact the last line of defense for those people.
A woman climbs through a broken window after people have announced the presence of an armed guard sworn to protect the congress with his gun out going in the direction of congressional people fleeing and she's a victim when he shoots her in the shoulder? I'm surprised that the bullet shot into her shoulder could actually deflect into her brain considering how small a target that had to have been.

 

It all would have not happened with adequate security and planning been in place after the forewarnings and guards approved to prevent it... the security of the Capitol is the very job assigned to the Capitol Police and overseer Pelosi and ilk... they failed at their job... no excuse...

 

Make believe.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...pelosi-blocked-national-guard-on-jan-6-false/

And you might then ask, when she and the Senate Majority leader requested the guard who was responsible for their deployment then and prior? His first name is Donald.