Unarmed woman is shot by Police in Capitol. The People Who Scream ‘Police Brutality’ Don’t Care.

What illegal or unethical act are you claiming that Trump covered up?

You haven't sourced WHAT he covered up. And I expect that you never will!

Gunfire was just ONE of the possible definitions in a list of multiple definitions! It doesn't mean that "pop pop" must mean ALL of the possible definitions! You don't seem to understand how definitions work!

There wasn't even any gunfire by rioters on January 6!

Well I'm sure that Trump paid him, but you have no evidence that Trump SPECIFICALLY paid him to say "trial by combat."

You have no evidence that 2000 to 25000 people attacked the Capitol. Simple!

I simply said that it wasn't as big as 2000 to 2500 people. Simple!

 

Source in post 2039

I gave 4 sources all saying that. While "You agreed that it can simply mean a loud noise.", is false.

Point still stands that fighting was in context of the violence as what Donald promoted to his fascists. That is what happened.

It still fits in the same context of the speech made by Donald, while Donald never condemned Giuliani over his part. You can't deny that. So it's irrelevant that I can't prove what you want me to prove.

I sourced the number.
The entire world saw the violence.
Does it look like I care about your opinion that you disagree?

 

Your source says nothing about Trump committing an illegal or unethical act!

Those 4 sources all say “gunfire” AS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE DEFINITIONS! It doesn't mean that "pop pop" must mean ALL of the possible definitions! You don't seem to understand how definitions work!

What does this have to do with gunfire?

This does not mean that Trump ENDORSED him saying “trial by combat.” Trump told people to be PEACEFUL!

No, your source does not say that 2000 to 25000 people attacked the Capitol. Simple!

 

It is not relevant my source says exactly that, since I sourced he lost his case at the supreme court, so not wanting to release information is illegal.
So sorry you do not get that.

It's the only definition that fits the context of his speech.

It's your point that you can't prove.

You said this before. And I responded
He only said that ones. He told them to fight 21 times, added pop pop, paid a guy who said to go have a trial by combat.
So I do not care that he only said sometimes ones, why the bulk of his message is to be violent.
His fascist did what he told them to do.

It is not relevant my source says exactly that, since we all know they couldn't enter the Capitol peacefully.
The entire world saw it was closed by cops blocking all the doors, and Donald's fascist violently attacking them.

 

No, not WANTING to do something is NOT in fact illegal. Feelings are not illegal. I might not WANT to do something, but that doesn't mean that I don't do it if I am required to by law. Trump lost his legal case and now the Democrats have the documents. Again, your source says nothing about Trump committing an illegal or unethical act. Simple!

Trump said nothing about gunfire! Since when does Trump think before he says something? You're assuming that he thought deeply about saying "pop pop" before he said it. It does not mean that he was promoting violence.

You're claim is that Trump ENDORSED him saying “trial by combat.” That is YOUR point that you cannot prove!

What is "violent" about saying "fight" in a political speech which every politician says? Clearly you're perfectly okay with the politicians you LIKE saying "fight!"

There were certainly a bunch of people who violently attacked the cops, but it certainly wasn't 2000 to 2500. Simple!

 

You've been over ruled by the supreme court.

You are refusing to respond it fits the context of fight this fight that, and the trial by combat part.

This is your claim "This does not mean that Trump ENDORSED him saying “trial by combat.”
And you can't prove it.

You are refusing to respond it fits the context of fight this fight that, pop pop and the trial by combat part.

The entire world saw that you could not have gained access to the Capitol the peaceful way.

 

What the hell are you talking about? The Supreme Court simply said that the documents must be released. It said NOTHING about any cover up! Again, your source says nothing about Trump committing an illegal or unethical act. Simple!

"FIGHT" which every politician who has ever existed has said in a politically charged speech! Clearly you're perfectly okay with the politicians you LIKE saying "fight!"

That's not a claim. I am saying that MAYBE Trump endorsed him saying “trial by combat.” I'm saying that anything is possible! However, you claim that Trump DEFINITELY endorsed him saying “trial by combat!" That is YOUR point that you cannot prove! Simple!

Yes, OBVIOUSLY! This does not mean that there were 2000 to 2500 people who violently attacked the cops. Simple!

 

I never said my source proved Donald covered it up. I said that Donald didn't want to disclose what he and his team did on jan 6th, and tried to cover it up. And I proved that, since the supreme court was dragged in and made him disclose that information. Simple!

You are refusing to respond it fits the context of fight this fight that, and the trial by combat part.

Nope. My point is that he did not condemn that comment. And I am right.
While I find your approach irrelevant, since I am already right.

So you admit that 2000 to 2500 people did not gaine access the Capitol peacefully.

irrelevant.

 

You did not claim that Trump "TRIED" to cover it up. You claimed that Trump covered something up. The below two posts demonstrate this:

Your source says NOTHING about Trump not wanting to disclose what "he and his team did on Jan 6." Your source only talks about "700 pages of Trump White House records" which Trump tried to prevent the release of: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/sup...white-house-records-from-jan-6-committee.html

So Trump tried to prevent the release of 700 pages of Trump White House records. Do you call that a COVER UP?
Anyway, you've made it clear that you are NOT claiming that Trump tried to cover up SPECIFICALLY an illegal or unethical act. Good!

We are talking about the context of him saying "fight this fight that!" "FIGHT" which every politician who has ever existed has said in a politically charged speech! Clearly you're perfectly okay with the politicians you LIKE saying "fight!"

Yes, you are right that he did not condemn the "trial by combat" comment. So what's your point?

No, I admit that PEOPLE did not gain access the Capitol peacefully, but your claim is that there were 2000 to 2500 of them! Which you have yet to prove!

 

It was so until the Supreme Court put an end to it.

Since he didn't want to, and the Supreme Court made him: yes.
You seem to make some kind of dumb argument that since Donald did not succeed in a cover up, it means there was no cover up. As if, Chris. lol

I do not recall any political ever ranted to go "pop pop".
I do not recall any political ever paid a gimp to yell to have "a trial by combat".
And so what others said remains to not be the same context.

That the context of the fight this fight that, is a call to go and be physical violent. His supporters rather massively did what was asked to "stop the steal".

There you go. So no peacefully = violent.
And I sourced the number of the amount of people.
I don't care about your opinion about it.

 

The point is that in order for it to be a "cover up", the 700 pages of Trump White House records would need to include evidence of some sort of illegal or unethical act!

Which has nothing to do with FIGHTING! Trump made it clear that he wanted them to be peaceful when he told them to... BE PEACEFUL! So this cancels out "pop, pop."

They did what was asked to "stop the steal" by FAILING to stop the steal?

Correct. I never said that it was not violent.

You sourced the number of people who entered the Capitol, NOT the Capitol BUILDING. Also, there could have been many people who gained access to the Capitol building without having to get past a police officer -- they just saw a gap, and went through. Illegal trespassing? Sure. Violent? NOPE!

 

Them 700 pages contained the info that Donald and or his team were busy taking hold of the voting machines. We all know that.
Please explain to all of us how seizing voting machines is ethnical. Make the answer simple.

Already replied to this, that he only said peaceful ones, while he motivated people to be violent over 20 times.

The attempt is what counts. It's like an attempt to murder somebody... it's still a massive no-no when you fail. Your point is mute.

You dispute it was violent, and so basically claim it was peaceful. While I sourced 1000's of ppl gained access to the Capitol, and it could only have been the peaceful way.

It could not have happened peaceful. Pictures and vids were blasted all over the world of that mostly white privileged Trump crowd violently gained access to the Capitol.
The police would have massacred if the Muslims or black people would have done that.

 

You haven't provided support for that! Anyway, what do voting machines have to do with Jan 6?

Seizing them for what purpose?

Quote each of the 20 times that he told people to be violent. This should be good!

In which post did I dispute that there was violence involved in the Capitol building break-in and in which post did I claim that it was all peaceful?

It could only have been the PEACEFUL way?

Are you actually claiming that NOBODY gained access to the building without beating down a cop? If so, then you're gonna have to provide support for that!

Yes, many of them DID violently gained access to the Capitol building, but there's no evidence that there were 2000 to 2500 of them!

Your assumption.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/21/donald-trump-voting-machines-draft-executive-order

I asked you to explain first that you need to explain yourself it's ethnic to confiscating voting machines first.
Since you are not explaining yourself it means my point stands that Donald tried to cover it up.

There is zero reason to do that since the speech has been linked.

Since they all violated the law when entering The Capitol by beating away the cops in front of it: yup, it could only happened violently and the entire world witnessed it.
While you have been disputing it all the way.

The reality how cops deal when attacked by a white mob vs black or muslims.

 

Are you saying that there is no situation in which confiscating voting machines would be okay? What if there was evidence that the Russians hacked the voting machines in 2016? I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't have had any problem with them being confiscated! Now, Trump was under the delusion that the voting machines were hacked/manipulated in the 2020 election, which he was obviously wrong about and had no legal basis for. The fact is that - as your source points out - the draft executive order was "never sent and its author is unknown." So it didn't even go anywhere. You're acting as if the machines were actually seized. If they were seized, I would call that unethical if there was no legitimate legal basis for it.

Yes, the FULL speech transcript has been linked to by ME many times! Here it is once again, and maybe you can copy and paste the quotes in which he tells people to be violent: https://apnews.com/article/election...-siege-media-e79eb5164613d6718e9f4502eb471f27

If what you're saying is that the violence is what enabled people to gain access, and without it, nobody would have gained access, then I totally agree. My point is that once the violent thug animals carried out their violence - creating a way through - many peaceful people took advantage of that and gained access without having to be violent.

Name ONE example of the police going up against a black mob or a Muslim mob!

 

I am not hearing you explain how specifically Trump seizing voting machines when he lost the elections is ethical.

So you can do control-F and search for the word fight on your own and spot you get 21 hits.
No need to ask me.

I am not going to buy some insane story that an unexpected group of people just stumble their way into the Capitol unknowing a violent fascist mob of Trump supporters just beat away the cops to make it possible to enter the Capitol. When you're suggesting that, it'll be up to you to prove that point.

Black unarmed people are killed all the time when supposedly but not actually "resisting" arrest... and you want an example how they get killed when they go beyond resisting and fight cops?
Ah well.. here is one example: George Floyd.

 

Well he did NOT seize any voting machines. Your source did not say that he did. Simple!

Your claim was that Trump "motivated people to be violent over 20 times." So you can do control-F and search for the word "violent" on your own and see that you get ZERO hits!

What the hell are you talking about, an "unexpected group of people?" I'm sure that everyone DID know that people had just beat away the cops to make it possible to enter the Capitol, but you have no evidence that every single person who gained access to the Capitol building did so by beating away cops. Simple!

Did George Floyd fight cops?

 

Totally not relevant. You can not explain how it's legal or ethical. And so I proved Donald coved up those plans of seizing voting machines. And so the GOP is busy with a cover up by not cooperating with that jan 6th commission.... who investigates what Donald did when his supporters made the biggest assault on the capitol since centuries in their fail attempt to overturn the elections.

Totally not relevant. fight is mentioned 21 times.
I claimed: Point still stands that fighting was in context of the violence as what Donald promoted to his fascists. That is what happened.

It doesn't overturn that they gained access through violence.
It doesn't overturn they were part of that mob who gained access through violence.

So it stands them 2000 t0 2500 people were part of a violent mob who all gained access to the Capitol through violence. The violence Donald preached moments before they went at it. While the GOP afterwards refuses to cooperate with the investigation and tries to cover up their idea's of overturning the elections.

I asked:
Black unarmed people are killed all the time when supposedly but not actually "resisting" arrest... and you want an example how they get killed when they go beyond resisting and fight cops?
And I'm not seeing any answers when I brought up the example of Floyd.

I note I previously won the point in this thread that the predominantly white police force only shot ones on that predominantly white utterly violent crowed of Trump supporters. While those same cops have no problem at all with killing unarmed black people.

 

I said that it MIGHT be legal or ethical in certain circumstances! If the Intelligence Community suspected that Russia had hacked voting machines in an election, then OF COURSE it would be legal and ethical for the machines to be seized and investigated! You obviously agree! Although you would probably only agree if you didn't like the outcome of the hacked election!

He "promoted" no violence to anyone. So there is no "context of the violence." Simple!

Who is "they?" ALL of them? If so, then you're wrong. SOME of them? If so, then you are 100% correct!

Depends what you mean by "PART" of the mob.

Looks like you finally admit that they did not ALL gain access to the Capitol building through violence!

How is the GOP refusing to cooperate? The Democrats don't even NEED the GOP to cooperate with anything. It's the Democrats' investigation!

George Floyd didn't fight any cops! So I have no idea what you're even talking about!

Name ONE example of the police going up against a Muslim mob!

 

You are again not proving how specifically the president gets to seize the voting machines is ethnical or legal, when they lost the elections. And so I proved the GOP is busy with a cover up by not cooperating with that jan 6th commission.... who investigates what Donald did when his supporters made the biggest assault on the capitol since centuries in their fail attempt to overturn the elections.

Already told you that he promoted no violence just ones, while promoted the idea to be violent 21 times with the word "fight" alone.
And so his fascists did what they heard.

I sourced 2000 to 2500 people.

you're free to pick up a dictionary at any time.

We all saw that they violente bursted through doors they wrecked open / broken windows.

I proved the GOP is busy with a cover up by not cooperating with that jan 6th commission

The cops killed an unarmed handcuffed black man, without a care in the world, and so I do not need to prove how the cops would react when armed black men attack cops.

 

You asked if seizing voting machines is unethical or illegal. That's VERY general. You did NOT ask if seizing voting machines is illegal in the specific context of the 2020 election. Would you like to change it to purely a 2020 election context? If so, then it's pointless, because ZERO voting machines were seized! IF Trump actually seized them, then it would have been totally unethical and illegal.

So now you admit that he "promoted no violence!"

Your source did not say that 2000 to 2500 people individually gained access through violence. Simple!

No we did not see 2000 to 2500 people individually do that!

HOW have they not cooperated with it?

George Floyd didn't fight any cops! So I have no idea what you're even talking about!

Name ONE example of the police going up against a Muslim mob! You can't, and this is why you keep avoiding that question! You just
made the assumption that because Muslims are a minority group, then they MUST be brutalised by cops!

 

The context of seizing is flat out related to the 2020 elections and the GOP attempting to coverup their plans for the jan 6 commission. And you are conceding to this too by not explaining how this was ethnical or legal for the president to seize the voting machines.

I responded weeks ago with.
He only said that ones. He told them to fight 21 times, added pop pop, paid a guy who said to go have a trial by combat.
So I do not care that he only said sometimes ones, why the bulk of his message is to be violent.
His fascist did what he told them to do.

You are conceding to this by not responding to this.

it did. They are all sought after for accessing the capitol the criminal way.

maybe you didn't, the rest of the world did.

I sourced they went to supreme court to keep the lid on.

I never said he did. Point stands cops have no problem lynching an unarmed black guy handcuffed in brought daylong, so that leaves nothing to the imagination what they would do if a black guy would actually attacked a cop. And you're not responding to that 1 line. So you're conceding.

 

So George Floyd was killed while in custody and the officer was found guilty of murder, therefore we know what that if a black guy had attacked a cop that day that he too would have been killed? Does that basically sum up your position?

Yeesh. That is unbelievably nonsensical.

 

Point is that 2000 to 2500 predominantly white fascists attacked the Capitol, and the cops shot just ones.
That shows cops got a big problem with actually shooting a white person when they are being attacked.
And how often did we have the discussion about cops having no problem with killing people for allegedly resisting.
Or running away. Closet racist enter the argument "don't resist if you do not want to be killed".

Is this all suddenly new to people? You don't say.

 

For the LAST time, he DID NOT seize any voting machines!

I responded in my reply to that post weeks ago. Here it is: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/unarmed-woman-is-shot-by-police-in-capitol-the-people-who-scream-‘police-brutality’-don’t-care.583573/page-83#post-1073276380

Ah, so now you're moving the goalposts! You changed it from accessing the capitol the VIOLENT way, to accessing the capitol the CRIMINAL way. So criminal but not violent?

Trump went to the Supreme Court, not the GOP. You're confused.

What do you mean "he promoted no violence just ones?" Do you mean just ONCE? And you say that MY English is bad!

There is no footage which shows over 2000 individual acts of violence towards cops. Simple!

Name ONE example of the police going up against a Muslim mob!
You can't, and this is why you keep avoiding that question! You just made the assumption that because Muslims are a minority group, then they MUST be brutalised by cops!

So Floyd is an example of someone who was "killed when they go beyond resisting and fight cops?"