When and where will Trump flee to?
Scotland
UAE
Azerbaijan (I'm going with this 'Russian' place)
And I say early tomorrow morning.
When and where will Trump flee to?
Scotland
UAE
Azerbaijan (I'm going with this 'Russian' place)
And I say early tomorrow morning.
They got the Confederate flag guy
of COURSE he is named Kevin.
I'll add that even CNN is saying that the riot was planned in advance (which if it was, hold the motherf*ckers responsible but lets not destroy the integrity of our Democracy in the process), that hurts the case that Trump incited the riot.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/13/politics/capitol-riot-investigation/index.html
It's interesting that following your oath to the Constitution has become a Profile in Courage. But I do praise the 10 GOP reps that did the Right thing !!
Before calling me a moron, a podium and a lectern are NOT the same thing.
So a podium is a small platform to stand on, while a lectern is a raised desk to stand behind. A good example is a conductor of an orchestra. He will stand on a podium so that the entire orchestra can see him, while the score rests on a lectern.
Let it Rupp wrote:
I'll add that even CNN is saying that the riot was planned in advance (which if it was, hold the motherf*ckers responsible but lets not destroy the integrity of our Democracy in the process), that hurts the case that Trump incited the riot.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/13/politics/capitol-riot-investigation/index.html
CNN is a real reputable source. Yeah right. Jake Tapper suggested that Congressman Brian Mast was not a patriot because he voted against impeachment. Shame on him. Oh. .. Brian Mast??? He happens to be an army veteran and an effing DOUBLE AMPUTEE. JAKE. You POS.
Calamity Joe wrote:
Let it Rupp wrote:
I'll add that even CNN is saying that the riot was planned in advance (which if it was, hold the motherf*ckers responsible but lets not destroy the integrity of our Democracy in the process), that hurts the case that Trump incited the riot.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/13/politics/capitol-riot-investigation/index.htmlCNN is a real reputable source. Yeah right. Jake Tapper suggested that Congressman Brian Mast was not a patriot because he voted against impeachment. Shame on him. Oh. .. Brian Mast??? He happens to be an army veteran and an effing DOUBLE AMPUTEE. JAKE. You POS.
I'm not sure whose side you're on? Evidence that the riot was planned in advance by extremist groups and individuals actually helps Trump in this case. If only CNN was fair and unbiased enough to report evidence that BLM/Antifa riots were planned as well.
agip wrote:
They got the Confederate flag guy
of COURSE he is named Kevin.
Karens
Kevins
and
Kyles
Let it Rupp wrote:
johnny99 wrote:
You seem to be having a hard understanding why impeachment was justified. Here's the explanation offered by a conservative Congressman from a strongTrump district in SC, who voted to impeach:
"Under the strict definition of the law, I don't know if the President's speech last Wednesday morning amounted to incitement of a riot, but any reasonable person could see the potential for violence," Rice said in a statement after voting in favor of impeachment on Wednesday. "I have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and voted for him twice. But, this utter failure is inexcusable."
And this:
Rice noted that "the President was watching and tweeted about the Vice President's lack of courage" in failing to overturn the election outcome while Capitol Police were beaten and Congress was forced to go into lockdown.
"For hours while the riot continued, the President communicated only on Twitter and offered only weak requests for restraint," Rice said. "I was on the floor of the House of Representatives when the rioters were beating on the door with tear gas, zip tie restraints, and pipe bombs in their possession. It is only by the grace of God and the blood of the Capitol Police that the death toll was not much, much higher."
--------------------------------------------------
I thought that if Trump had any courage whatsoever, and was actually a leader, he would have gone to the Capitol personally and appealed to the rioters to stop. That would have put an end to it immediately. I know, security risks and all that, but these were his sheep, whatever he says to do they do.
I understand this viewpoint, but people in the media, our government and the general public are making claims of "incitement" with no evidence and no real understanding of what incitement means. All incitement is is a person or group telling another person or group to commit a crime, and then that person/group committing said crime. Using last week's riot as an example, that would require Trump telling the protestors to cause a riot or storm the capitol in some capacity - which isn't even what the media is saying he did.
They're trying to say that him talking about election fraud incited the riot, which by definition is impossible and our politicians know this (god knows how many lawyers are in congress, one of them is bound to know what the definition of incitement is). And if people want to play that game, then all of our politicians and journalists who tweeted/reported claims that the US is white supremacist and systemically racist and that the deaths of George Floyd and Jacob Blake were racially motivated should be held responsible for inciting riots this summer as well (including ones in DC where left wing protestors set fire to the city and attempted to storm the white house in order to kill the president).
Congress can impeach Trump all they want, but people are going to be sorely disappointed if they think he's going to be convicted.
(1) Understand that "this viewpoint" is the viewpoint of a conservative Congressman who has consistently backed Trump, right up until last Wednesday. And that Congressman voted to impeach. His explanation for why he voted to impeach is going to be about the most conservative view on this you can get.
(2) You're wrong when you say there is no evidence. You can scroll back in this thread a few pages and find my post from a few hours ago - I laid out all of Trump's statements that are evidence of incitement. You're free to argue that it's weak evidence, and that a criminal jury wouldn't convict Trump based on those statements. But when you say there's no evidence, perhaps you're being a bit blind to reality here. Right now, we may not know of any statements from Trump where he directly told the traitors to storm the Capitol, but he comes pretty close and in a courtroom, circumstantial evidence is permissible and juries can use their common sense. So yes, there is evidence that Trump incited the riot.
(3) I don't know your background, so I don't know how qualified you are to say that "people in the media, our government and the general public are making claims of 'incitement' with no evidence and no real understanding of what incitement means." I'm not sure if you know what 'incitement' means, and what the standard is for proving incitement in either a criminal trial or an impeachment. But you can take a look at the CNN article from former federal prosecutor Elie Honig, who argues that criminal prosecution of Trump based on the publicly known statements made by him is not out of the question. I'm sure he knows what incitement is. Yo can dismiss him as a fake news Trump hater if you want, but I'm not sure why anyone should accept your view of the standard for showing insurrection over the view of a former federal prosecutor.
(4) You're wrong when you say they (who is 'they', anyhow?) are claiming that Trump's election fraud lies are what incited the riot. It's a lot more than that, and you should know that if you've been paying attention. Again, look at my post from earlier today; I've laid out all of Trump's statements that, arguably at least, incited the riot.
Trollminator wrote:
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
Is that a picture of you standing behind the podium?
I thought you were trying to pretend not to be sally
Dude, give the Marietta = Sally thing a rest.
Sally has an IQ of around 80
Marietta has an IQ of around 110
They are NOT the same person. And it doesn't matter if you disagree with Marietta or dislike him. If you believe that Marietta and Sally are one and the same then you are either not paying attention or you are a moron.
Let it Rupp wrote:
[P]eople in the media, our government and the general public are making claims of "incitement" with no evidence and no real understanding of what incitement means. All incitement is is a person or group telling another person or group to commit a crime, and then that person/group committing said crime. Using last week's riot as an example, that would require Trump telling the protestors to cause a riot or storm the capitol in some capacity - which isn't even what the media is saying he did.
They're trying to say that him talking about election fraud incited the riot, which by definition is impossible and our politicians know this (god knows how many lawyers are in congress, one of them is bound to know what the definition of incitement is). And if people want to play that game, then all of our politicians and journalists who tweeted/reported claims that the US is white supremacist and systemically racist and that the deaths of George Floyd and Jacob Blake were racially motivated should be held responsible for inciting riots this summer as well (including ones in DC where left wing protestors set fire to the city and attempted to storm the white house in order to kill the president).
Congress can impeach Trump all they want, but people are going to be sorely disappointed if they think he's going to be convicted.
I certainly agree that he is extraordinarily unlikely to be convicted, but not because of the legal definition of incitement.
As others have pointed out repeatedly, impeachment is a political act and not a legal proceeding. "High crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever a majority of the House might say they are; and the person so accused can be convicted as long as 2/3 of the Senate agrees--even if there's no evidence of an actual crime, and even if the available evidence absolutely absolves the accused individual of any crime.
Let it Rupp wrote:
I'll add that even CNN is saying that the riot was planned in advance (which if it was, hold the motherf*ckers responsible but lets not destroy the integrity of our Democracy in the process), that hurts the case that Trump incited the riot.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/13/politics/capitol-riot-investigation/index.html
It's hard to say if Trump's actions meet the legal definition of "incite to riot".
But there is absolutely no doubt at all that his actions meet the dictionary definition of "incite":
Definition of incite
transitive verb
: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on
Planned or not, it is certainly proper to say the Trump incited the riot on the capitol. He did that. There is zero doubt about it.
Paradoxical wrote:
Calamity Joe wrote:
CNN is a real reputable source. Yeah right. Jake Tapper suggested that Congressman Brian Mast was not a patriot because he voted against impeachment. Shame on him. Oh. .. Brian Mast??? He happens to be an army veteran and an effing DOUBLE AMPUTEE. JAKE. You POS.
I'm not sure whose side you're on? Evidence that the riot was planned in advance by extremist groups and individuals actually helps Trump in this case. If only CNN was fair and unbiased enough to report evidence that BLM/Antifa riots were planned as well.
If Trump hadn't fought the election results there wouldn't have been a riot. He also promoted the protest and made the false statement that Congress, and particularly Pence, could overturn the election.
Trump not directly telling them to invade the Capitol does not get him off the hook. No Trump, no riot.
Calamity Joe wrote:
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
I'd call you a fvcking idiot too, but you're a worse troll than Sally. Seriously, you're terrible at it.
He was also wrong about De Blasio being able to unilaterally void the contracts.
That guy may change his handle every day, but he is right about the contracts.
Sorry, you lose.
Trollminator wrote:
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
I'll address it again. I'm not Sally. Sally is a fvcking idot (she's not alone here).
If some admin would like to do an IP check on both of us, I'm all for it.
Now I am a registered poster outside this thread on the running releated threads. There's a good reason I don't post with my registered name here. However, if you think about my username here, it wouldn't be too difficult to figure out my registered handle. Alas, I don't think I've seen any of you over on the actual running threads though.
Your last mistake was the podium joke. Sally is the only possibility. I know you were trying really hard this time but it was a bust.
Sigh. Someone made joke about his height. Yes. I piled on.
I see you don't want to take me up on an IP check, pathwayz.
Your mistake was going all "I know NYC" on her about the contracts.
Calamity Joe wrote:
Let it Rupp wrote:
I'll add that even CNN is saying that the riot was planned in advance (which if it was, hold the motherf*ckers responsible but lets not destroy the integrity of our Democracy in the process), that hurts the case that Trump incited the riot.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/13/politics/capitol-riot-investigation/index.htmlCNN is a real reputable source. Yeah right. Jake Tapper suggested that Congressman Brian Mast was not a patriot because he voted against impeachment. Shame on him. Oh. .. Brian Mast??? He happens to be an army veteran and an effing DOUBLE AMPUTEE. JAKE. You POS.
You do know that several of the people charged with the most serious crimes in the Capitol riot were veterans or ex-military.
Do you consider them patriots too?
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
Calamity Joe wrote:
He was also wrong about De Blasio being able to unilaterally void the contracts.
That guy may change his handle every day, but he is right about the contracts.
Sorry, you lose.
I made no claim about unilaterally voiding contracts. It does not work that way, like it works in Trumpland, Sally. Contradicting your prior persona doesn't work out well for you, and I know see you are obsessed with me the same way Individual Too was (the reason I have not registered a name in more than 10 years).
De Blasio can only direct staff to terminate the contracts, and legal staff handles it from there. He cannot do it unilaterally on his own. The terminations will be handled the way legal staff determines is the proper for each contract. The termination sequence for each contract are likely be different.
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
[quote]Calamity Joe wrote:
You do know that several of the people charged with the most serious crimes in the Capitol riot were veterans or ex-military.
Do you consider them patriots too?
Talking to yourself. #sad
Marietta Tar Heel wrote:
Calamity Joe wrote:
CNN is a real reputable source. Yeah right. Jake Tapper suggested that Congressman Brian Mast was not a patriot because he voted against impeachment. Shame on him. Oh. .. Brian Mast??? He happens to be an army veteran and an effing DOUBLE AMPUTEE. JAKE. You POS.
You do know that several of the people charged with the most serious crimes in the Capitol riot were veterans or ex-military.
Do you consider them patriots too?
There is a huge difference between a veteran double amputee voting against impeachment and veterans (whose service I greatly admire) engaging in such acts of violence/potential violence.
Another 900K vaccinated in the past day. Up to 11.1MM.
Georgia now ahead of Alabama in both % vacccinated and does adminstered into 2nd to last. Suck on that Tide. We have our sights set on the Gamecocks and whatever Idaho is (potatoes?) next.
WV still leading the way with 74% of doses administered.