Black cop kills white, unarmed white woman on 1/6 and is rewarded with a promotion

[Ghost of a Rider]

The gathering, the march on the Capitol, and the riot was not a spontaneous event.

No shit.

Instead of trying calm the rioters, the Trumpyberra incited them even further during the event.

Wait, during what event, the rally or the riot? He didn't do or say anything during the riot to incite them further.

In a 2:24 p.m. tweet, Trump wrote: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution."

The crowd was ready to hang Pence.

They were already angry at Pence. Trump did not say anything in his rally speech that the crowd did not already know or agree with. There was anger and resentment expressed against Pence by Trump supporters long before Jan. 6 because Pence was not going along with the stolen election narrative.

 

[Lesh]

No, he didn't. No one does.

Every one of those people who stormed the Capital had the choice not to do so.

Look at it this way; if the crowd had been mostly Democrats, would his speech have had the same power or effect? Of course not. Ergo, Trump has no power in that regard. Ultimately, the power to choose and act always resides within the individual.

Co conspirators in a bank robbery have a choice as well. But the leader of that conspiracy is almost always sentenced more harshly.

 

[HeyNorm]

MAGAts would love to have a violent mob bash the doors/windows of their homes/businesses and climb in. MAGAts would offer them milk and cookies.

Like BLM and Antifa did to hundreds and hundreds? Leftards gave em more than milk and cookies, but millions of dollars.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Don't be fatuous.
Analogy is a thing.
Trust me.

Again, don't be stupid. Of course analogy is a thing. That doesn't mean the analogy is always apt. In this case, it was not.

The movie is fiction and thus the author intended the phrase to be metaphorical because that's the way he wrote the character/s.

You do not know that Trump intended his supporters to riot and storm and break into the Capital.

------------------------------------------------------------------



And so, thankfully, we go to trial.

Don Trump can explain to the court, to the jury, not you and me......why he is innocent of:

• one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States applies to Trump's repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.
• one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote's certification in January 2021.
• one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators' alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.
• one count of conspiracy against rights refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to "oppress, threaten and intimidate" people in their right to vote in an election.

We are a country of laws. And no man is above the law.

Irrelevant. We're talking about whether or not Trump is liable for the events of Jan. 6.

 

[Lesh]

No shit.


Wait, during what event, the rally or the riot? He didn't do or say anything during the riot to incite them further.


They were already angry at Pence. Trump did not say anything in his rally speech that the crowd did not already know or agree with. There was anger and resentment expressed against Pence by Trump supporters long before Jan. 6 because Pence was not going along with the stolen election narrative.

And yet… in the middle of that attack on the Capitol Trump tweeted out his “disappointment “ with Pence that he failed to illegally discard the legitimate electors.

And that crown of miscreants began chanting “Hang Mike Pence”

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Co conspirators in a bank robbery have a choice as well. But the leader of that conspiracy is almost always sentenced more harshly.

Not for anything he said but for what he did.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

And yet… in the middle of that attack on the Capitol Trump tweeted out his “disappointment “ with Pence that he failed to illegally discard the legitimate electors.

And that crown of miscreants began chanting “Hang Mike Pence”

What time did the attack begin and what time did Trump post his tweet? At the time Trump sent his tweet, was the crowd already out of hand and was Trump aware of this?

 

[Lesh]

Not for anything he said but for what he did.

Really? Conspiracy is only an action in that it involves WORDS

 

[Lesh]

What time did the attack begin and what time did Trump post his tweet? At the time Trump sent his tweet, was the crowd already out of hand and was Trump aware of this?

Trump was glued to his TV. He knew what was going on

 

[marvin martian]

Trump was glued to his TV. He knew what was going on

 

[BlindBoo]

View attachment 823202

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Really? Conspiracy is only an action in that it involves WORDS

I was referring to the ringleader in your example. The ringleader actually participates in the robbery and what's more, the robbery was the known intended outcome.

In this case, it is not known that the riot and break-in were the intended outcome because Trump never specifically called for violence of any kind and the prosecutors will need to prove that. Otherwise it's just a case of a bunch of idiots allowing their emotions to get away from them and making bad choices.

It's not against the law to appeal to the emotions of your audience when giving a political speech. Every politician does it. They do it to get their audience to become as angry or as passionate about an issue as they are.

In fact, after all the angry rhetoric from Democrat politicians after the overturning of Roe-Vs.-Wade, Supreme Court justices started receiving threats. But no one's gonna talk about that, are they?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Trump was glued to his TV. He knew what was going on

That doesn't answer the question.

 

[Chillicothe]

You do not know that Trump intended his supporters to riot and storm and break into the Capital

Nor, do I know hat he did not intend that.
Events and the actions and the words by Don Trump suggest he did intend for the EC vote to be disrupted.

Per the testimony at the J6 Committee hearings Don Trump knew some of his supporters were armed, he knew they were angry, he intentionally made them angrier, then he pointed them directly at our elected Representatives.

That is context. That is circumstances.

He wanted the EC vote to be disrupted.....first, by Pence, and when Pence refused....then, by any means necessary. Lest, any other responsible leader would have immediately asserted himself in media of any form in an attempt to mitigate the anger, mitigate the criminal behavior, the injuries, the damage to our Capitol. Such was, manifestly, HIS highest duty. To protect America.

Instead, Trump, watched the criminals wearing his MAGA gear do the crimes.
He merely watched for too too long.

Dereliction of duty. At minimum
Criminal negligence? Sounds like it.

 

[Chillicothe]

Again, don't be stupid. Of course analogy is a thing. That doesn't mean the analogy is always apt. In this case, it was not. The movie is fiction and thus the author intended the phrase to be metaphorical because that's the way he wrote the character/s.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


You are trying too hard poster.
Metaphor, like analogy, is a thing too. Trust me.

And cannoli was a metaphor. "Will be wild".....was less so
Trump 'dog whistled' to his groupies "Fight"...."Fight"....."Fight".
And "Will be wild".....wasn't talking about young girls in wet T-shirts.
Trust me.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Nor, do I know hat he did not intend that.

That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on the one making the allegation.

Events and the actions and the words by Don Trump suggest he did intend for the EC vote to be disrupted.

To you.

Per the testimony at the J6 Committee hearings Don Trump knew some of his supporters were armed, he knew they were angry, he intentionally made them angrier, then he pointed them directly at our elected Representatives.

1.) What exactly was this testimony?

2.) If by "..he pointed them directly at our elected representatives" you mean he expressed anger and resentment towards them, this does not necessarily mean he meant for the crowd to do violence.

3.) As I mentioned before, Democrats stoked anger and resentment towards Trump for four years.

That is context. That is circumstances.

Context is not evidence or proof. And "That is circumstances" means it is circumstantial evidence which is usually rejected in our legal process. Circumstantial evidence is rejected because it only means that the allegations are one of several possible scenarios, only one of which could be that outlined in the charges. That's not enough.

It's not enough to say there was a rally, Trump gave an impassioned speech, that his supporters were angry, that he called for them to march to the Capital and that there was then a riot and the crowd broke into the building because this is all circumstantial. This means that it is entirely possible that even given this series of circumstances, Trump never intended for the crowd break into the Capital. Therefore, the exact opposite could in fact be true.

He wanted the EC vote to be disrupted.....first, by Pence, and when Pence refused....then, by any means necessary. Lest, any other responsible leader would have immediately asserted himself in media of any form in an attempt to mitigate the anger, mitigate the criminal behavior, the injuries, the damage to our Capitol.

1.) You don't know that.

2.) Democrats did the exact same thing in Seattle and allowed a bunch of punks to riot, vandalize, loot, burn and then take over an entire section of a major American city. Not only did they do nothing to stop it, some encouraged it. It wasn't until a couple of people got murdered that they decided to step in and put a stop to it.

Such was, manifestly, HIS highest duty. To protect America.

Perhaps. As I've already said, a case may be made for negligence after the fact, but none of this proves it was planned or that he meant for them to break into the Capital.

Instead, Trump, watched the criminals wearing his MAGA gear do the crimes.
He merely watched for too too long.

Dereliction of duty. At minimum
Criminal negligence? Sounds like it.

Again, perhaps.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

----------------------------------------------------------------------


You are trying too hard poster.
Metaphor, like analogy, is a thing too. Trust me.

I'm trying too hard? You're the one who quoted a line from a fictional movie as some kind of evidence in a real world case for Christ's sake.

And cannoli was a metaphor. "Will be wild".....was less so
Trump 'dog whistled' to his groupies "Fight"...."Fight"....."Fight".
And "Will be wild".....wasn't talking about young girls in wet T-shirts.
Trust me.

Doesn't mean he was talking about storming the Capital either. Circumstantial evidence.