Jump to content

Because Trump 2.0


Mr King
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 2/16/2021 at 12:11 PM, glenn239 said:

That will be up to SCOTUS to decide.

I can't see formal charges being brought against him. While I think he is responsible, I don't think it could be proved in court beyond a doubt and I don't think anyone wants to press the issue further in criminal court.

I do expect a LOT of civil lawsuits from those injured or the family of those who died, however. Perhaps even from some of those arrested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 26.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Jeff

    1533

  • Stuart Galbraith

    2392

  • DKTanker

    1574

  • rmgill

    1705

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

27 minutes ago, Josh said:

I can't see formal charges being brought against him. While I think he is responsible, I don't think it could be proved in court beyond a doubt and I don't think anyone wants to press the issue further in criminal court.

I do expect a LOT of civil lawsuits from those injured or the family of those who died, however. Perhaps even from some of those arrested.

 

I agree.  I would add that I doubt the civil cases will be successful against Trump because Trump was president at the time.   The lawsuits might succeed against the US government, but if the purpose is to try and sue Trump personally, I think SCOTUS will throw it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oath Keepers boss told followers before Capitol riot that Trump 'wants us to make it WILD,' court document says (msn.com)

The self-described leader of the Florida branch of the far-right extremist group the Oath Keepers urged followers to travel to Washington, D.C., with him last month because "Trump said It's gonna be wild!!!!!"

"He wants us to make it WILD that's what he's saying," Oath Keepers chief Kelly Meggs wrote in a Facebook message, according to an indictment charging him and five other Oath Keepers associates with crimes related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot by Trump supporters.

Trump had promoted a "big protest" in Washington that day, as he argued, without evidence, that Joe Biden had won the presidential election through ballot fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Milo, either the evidence exists that Trump's people were coordinating with rioters before the riot to the purpose of storming the capitol, or it does not.  If it does not, the type of facts you post here do not, cannot, and will not substitute for its absence.    

From a "scientific" point of view, which l thought was a doctrine you believed in, the preponderance of circumstantial evidence points to Trump being foolhardy to hold a rally in Washington, but also, Trump having no idea that elements within the rally were intending to storm Congress, and no communications with any of them before the attack.

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2021 at 5:40 PM, MiloMorai said:

... of the far-right extremist group the Oath Keepers ...

I don't see what is "far-right extremist" about abiding by the oath we take to the foundational document of our country. If you aren't going to abide by ipthe oath, don't take it. If you don't know the document you're swearing to uphold, why would you swear to uphold it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FALightFighter said:

I don't see what is "far-right extremist" about abiding by the oath we take to the foundational document of our country. If you aren't going to abide by ipthe oath, don't take it. If you don't know the document you're swearing to uphold, why would you swear to uphold it?

Agreed. More so, calling the Oath Keepers far Right rather shows the perfidious nature of folks who make such calls. 

Oaths and constitutions mean nothing eh? Is absolute adherence to the oaths and constitutions before laws and men such a bad thing? This is like the people calling libertarians far right extremist.  In that frame of reference what's centrist then? What behaviors and values? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have quite literally been told by lefty friends that we attach too much concern to the constitution. I can only imagine what the non lefty friends think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Josh said:

Overrunning a join session of congress hardly seems like upholding the constitution. Rather the opposite.

Burning the budget into the mega Trillions hardly seems like upholding the constitution. 
Banning things that the constitution says you can't ban hardly seems like upholding the constitution. 
Allowing illegal aliens while restricting access to US citizens vis a vis free movement hardly seems like upholding the constitution. 
Enacting critical race theory teaching across the country hardly seems like upholding the constitution. 
Hell, most of the DNC platrom hardly seems like upholding the constitution. 

Or for that matter, ejecting people from the military for thought crime hardly seems like upholding the constitution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Josh said:

Overrunning a join session of congress hardly seems like upholding the constitution. Rather the opposite.

Stealing the election and selling the country to the Chinese seems a lot worse to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, rmgill said:

Burning the budget into the mega Trillions hardly seems like upholding the constitution. 
Banning things that the constitution says you can't ban hardly seems like upholding the constitution. 
Allowing illegal aliens while restricting access to US citizens vis a vis free movement hardly seems like upholding the constitution. 
Enacting critical race theory teaching across the country hardly seems like upholding the constitution. 
Hell, most of the DNC platrom hardly seems like upholding the constitution. 

Or for that matter, ejecting people from the military for thought crime hardly seems like upholding the constitution. 

BUT WHAT ABOUT!!!!!

Burning the mega trillions happens on Republican's watch as well, most recently with Trump and a GOP congress. However you feel about the practice, it is hardly a constitutional issue.

I'm assuming the banning comment is some oblique reference to gun control that never actually occurred but you're afraid of.

I don't believe the constitution addresses how immigration should be handled in any way; I've no idea what access restriction you're referring to.

Again, not sure what 'race theory teaching' you're referring to. Is there a federal stipulation for public schools that I'm not aware of, or is this a reference to the the course selection of private colleges?


You still haven't explained how overrunning Congress and the VP is especially constitutional. I'm think the founders would have disagreed with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Josh said:


You still haven't explained how overrunning Congress and the VP is especially constitutional. I'm think the founders would have disagreed with you.

Speaking of never explained, where is the smoking gun, the evidence that Trump or anyone on his team knew what some radical elements in the crowd were planning that day before it happened?   All well and good to say a crime wasn't constitutional, but just because the plane crashed doesn't mean the pilot was trying to cause the disaster, right?

Quote

don't believe the constitution addresses how immigration should be handled in any way;

If that is the case, then the states are perfectly within their rights to go 180 degrees opposite to the Feds and start extraditing illegals directly without relying on federal assistance, correct?  Because the constitution is quite specific that in any matter that is not addressed in the constitution, the states have the ultimate authority - am I remembering that correctly?

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The riot happened because Trump spent four years establishing to his followers that any election that didn't result in him winning was by definition rigged. I honestly doubt he or anyone in his circle knew or cared about any organized group within the protest. Most accounts say he was quite enthused by the crowd taking the building. I think Mitch said it best when - Trump was 'morally and practically responsible'. Nothing that would hold up in a court of law I imagine, but definitely something that wouldn't have happened if not for Trump's sustained disinformation campaign.

Federal law exceeds state law. I believe that is something laid out in the constitution, or else perhaps there is a phrase that explicitly gives the federal government power over immigration. Exactly what form immigration takes I don't believe is addressed. Previous to the 20th century, immigration was quite literally something you just showed up for without any identifying papers; google Ellis Island.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

All well and good to say a crime wasn't constitutional, but just because the plane crashed doesn't mean the pilot was trying to cause the disaster, right?

Well, yeah, but a pilot crashing an airliner because he felt like doing some loopings and corkscrews in the sky (and then somehow surviving it) without better reason than "I just wanted to demonstrate that it could be done, and I would have gotten away with it too had it not been for a handful of other problems for which I bear no responsibility" ... well, such a pilot would still lose his license.

Trump could have chosen different words than he did in the weeks prior to Jan 6th. The way he did it can only be summarized as "play with fire" - and it should surprise exactly nobody that it got out of hand even if we're giving him the maximal benefit of doubt by assuming that he didn't exactly keep his fingers crossed for a "Q shaman" presiding over the assembly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People focus on the speech given that day. That's not the sole issue; the issue is that Trump had a sustained campaign challenging the legitimacy of the election that heavily predated the election. He called into question three million votes in the election he actually won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why didn't he do something about it his first year in office? Either he is a lazy cheb, incompetent, or lying through his teeth. Or conceivably, all three.

let's face it, it's a bullshit argument he used twice, firstly because he was afraid he would lose, then because he did actually lose.

He instigated a riot, unwittingly or unwittingly, because he didn't want to be seen as a loser.People died because of his misguided sense of vanity.

Fuck him. 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Well, yeah, but a pilot crashing an airliner because he felt like doing some loopings and corkscrews in the sky (and then somehow surviving it) without better reason than "I just wanted to demonstrate that it could be done, and I would have gotten away with it too had it not been for a handful of other problems for which I bear no responsibility" ... well, such a pilot would still lose his license.

Trump could have chosen different words than he did in the weeks prior to Jan 6th. The way he did it can only be summarized as "play with fire" - and it should surprise exactly nobody that it got out of hand even if we're giving him the maximal benefit of doubt by assuming that he didn't exactly keep his fingers crossed for a "Q shaman" presiding over the assembly.

Agreed.  But if they already have the pilot on stunt flying, why would the safety board try to say the pilot deliberately crashed the plane? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every analogy carries only so far and we may already be beyond the point of diminishing returns here ... but let's just say in this case that the safety board assembles only every four years and found out that the dashing maverick pilot they were warned about and whom they handed a license to fly an airliner after a controversial debate four years ago continued to fly crazy stunts, some of them admirably so, but still occasionally damaging planes badly and crashing the last one.

In the same meeting, they issued a new license to a retired flight captain with narcolepsy and his young and alert co-pilot who can only fly left turns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Josh said:

People focus on the speech given that day. That's not the sole issue; the issue is that Trump had a sustained campaign challenging the legitimacy of the election that heavily predated the election. He called into question three million votes in the election he actually won.

I'm not a fan of former President Trump. Having said that it is a big jump from, he questioned the election, to he incited the riot.  Did I miss something, did he say go attack the capital and break in? 

Don't give me he said "fight" the results or similar. Because you can  find plenty of footage of various politicians saying fight for against various issues.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 17thfabn said:

Don't give me he said "fight" the results or similar. Because you can  find plenty of footage of various politicians saying fight for against various issues.

I can't help but notice the deep irony, that this is also the defense that some people use to say that the term "jihad" is often used to just mean a (purely philosophical/mental/faith based) struggle, not armed resistance or terrorism.

Not to derail this thread. Not to call this equivalent.

But the resemblance is striking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...