If Trump is guilty of inciting a riot it would be easy for USMB Democrats to prove it

[B. Kidd]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

Listen to the demented tRumplings shouting "take the capitol" at about 40 seconds in.

Too bad for you fucksticks that Trump NEVER said this!

Doesn't matter.

Great response, headbanger!

Buy a helmet!

It doesn't matter. He knew what was happening and encouraged it.

Jeebus!, not another feeling!

 

[airplanemechanic]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

"But for" causation is not enough to convict someone of breaking the law.

Otherwise, we'd all be criminals.

Consider this:

I hail a taxi cab and it stops at the curb to pick me up.

I tell the driver where I want him to go and the driver pulls away from the curb and hits a pedestrian.

"But for" me hailing the cab and telling the driver where I want him to go, the pedestrian would not have been hit by the taxi.

Should the pedestrian be allowed to hold me legally liable for his injuries?

Funny. Impeachment is not a "criminal" process - it's a "political" process in accordance with the Constitution.

If it was according to the Constitution Trump would still be in office.

It's sadly funny just how dumb and uninformed you Trump NaziCons are. Everything that is taking place is 100% legal and in accordance with our Constitution, laws, and precedents.

He is not in office. Impeachment is to remove someone from office. Nothing could be plainer.

Actually, nothing could be dumber! Trump was impeached while in office! McConnell refused to start the Senate trial before Trump left office! Many officials have been impeached AFTER leaving office! History and precedents speak for themselves.

History Shows the Senate Can Hold an Impeachment Trial After Trump Leaves Office

The suggestion that impeachment applies only when officials are in office is not consistent with the uniform practice of impeachments in US history.

www.justsecurity.org

Nancy Pelosi held onto the impeachment article until after Trump was out of office you stupid ****. Why would she do that if she was so sure he did something wrong and wanted him out of office? Mitch had already set the schedule for the senate, she waited, it was her loss.

 

[Dragonlady]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

"But for" causation is not enough to convict someone of breaking the law.

Otherwise, we'd all be criminals.

Consider this:

I hail a taxi cab and it stops at the curb to pick me up.

I tell the driver where I want him to go and the driver pulls away from the curb and hits a pedestrian.

"But for" me hailing the cab and telling the driver where I want him to go, the pedestrian would not have been hit by the taxi.

Should the pedestrian be allowed to hold me legally liable for his injuries?

A good analogy, however hitting a pedestrian is an unforeseen consequence.

The riot was not an unforeseen consequence or Trump’s rhetoric.

I don’t think Trump is a criminal, but his actions were so recklessly irresponsible I think he should be forbidden from holding public office again which is the point of the impeachment.

The point of impeachment is to remove someone from office. It only proves your reason means they cannot defraud him again.

The purpose of impeachment is to remove them from office AND to prevent them from ever holding public office again. Nearly all impeachments have taken place after the impeached official has been thrown out of office. The trial is to make sure Trump never runs again.

 

[Crepitus]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

Listen to the demented tRumplings shouting "take the capitol" at about 40 seconds in.

Too bad for you fucksticks that Trump NEVER said this!

Doesn't matter.

Great response, headbanger!

Buy a helmet!

It doesn't matter. He knew what was happening and encouraged it.

Jeebus!, not another feeling!

That's not a feeling, Son. It's a fact. They were shouting it directly at him.

 

[B. Kidd]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

"But for" causation is not enough to convict someone of breaking the law.

Otherwise, we'd all be criminals.

Consider this:

I hail a taxi cab and it stops at the curb to pick me up.

I tell the driver where I want him to go and the driver pulls away from the curb and hits a pedestrian.

"But for" me hailing the cab and telling the driver where I want him to go, the pedestrian would not have been hit by the taxi.

Should the pedestrian be allowed to hold me legally liable for his injuries?

Funny. Impeachment is not a "criminal" process - it's a "political" process in accordance with the Constitution.

If it was according to the Constitution Trump would still be in office.

It's sadly funny just how dumb and uninformed you Trump NaziCons are. Everything that is taking place is 100% legal and in accordance with our Constitution, laws, and precedents.

He is not in office. Impeachment is to remove someone from office. Nothing could be plainer.

Actually, nothing could be dumber! Trump was impeached while in office! McConnell refused to start the Senate trial before Trump left office! Many officials have been impeached AFTER leaving office! History and precedents speak for themselves.

History Shows the Senate Can Hold an Impeachment Trial After Trump Leaves Office

The suggestion that impeachment applies only when officials are in office is not consistent with the uniform practice of impeachments in US history.

www.justsecurity.org

Nancy Pelosi held onto the impeachment article for a week and a half after they impeached him. Why would she do that if she was so sure he did something wrong and wanted him out of office? Mitch had already set the schedule for the senate, she waited, it was her loss.

Shitnozzle Dimm's don't wanna talk about facts. Only their feelings.....

 

[B. Kidd]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

Listen to the demented tRumplings shouting "take the capitol" at about 40 seconds in.

Too bad for you fucksticks that Trump NEVER said this!

Doesn't matter.

Great response, headbanger!

Buy a helmet!

It doesn't matter. He knew what was happening and encouraged it.

Jeebus!, not another feeling!

That's not a feeling, Son. It's a fact. They were shouting it directly at him.

I'm not your son. Especially since you only shoot blanks!

 

[bodecea]

If Trump is guilty of inciting a riot it would be easy for USMB Democrats to prove it

So, prove it.

they are

how can you not be aware?

Are you asleep?

I have asked repeatedly for USMB Democrats to provide proof Trump incited the riot and despite my repeated requests, they have refused.

The logical conclusion is that the evidence doesn't exist. Trump never incited a riot.

There's no hope for you.

 

[Moonglow]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

No amount of evidence will change your mind and it is waste of effort to try and do as such.

 

[B. Kidd]

If Trump is guilty of inciting a riot it would be easy for USMB Democrats to prove it

So, prove it.

they are

how can you not be aware?

Are you asleep?

I have asked repeatedly for USMB Democrats to provide proof Trump incited the riot and despite my repeated requests, they have refused.

The logical conclusion is that the evidence doesn't exist. Trump never incited a riot.

There's no hope for you.

Geez... Another feeling!

 

[airplanemechanic]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

"But for" causation is not enough to convict someone of breaking the law.

Otherwise, we'd all be criminals.

Consider this:

I hail a taxi cab and it stops at the curb to pick me up.

I tell the driver where I want him to go and the driver pulls away from the curb and hits a pedestrian.

"But for" me hailing the cab and telling the driver where I want him to go, the pedestrian would not have been hit by the taxi.

Should the pedestrian be allowed to hold me legally liable for his injuries?

A good analogy, however hitting a pedestrian is an unforeseen consequence.

The riot was not an unforeseen consequence or Trump’s rhetoric.

I don’t think Trump is a criminal, but his actions were so recklessly irresponsible I think he should be forbidden from holding public office again which is the point of the impeachment.

The point of impeachment is to remove someone from office. It only proves your reason means they cannot defraud him again.

The purpose of impeachment is to remove them from office AND to prevent them from ever holding public office again. Nearly all impeachments have taken place after the impeached official has been thrown out of office. The trial is to make sure Trump never runs again.

You're making that up. NAME A SINGLE PRESIDENT whose trial occurred after they had left office BESIDES Trump.

If you read the constitution, it clearly states that impeachment is for removal from office, AND barring from running for office again. The conjunction AND means BOTH must occur together. If it would say OR then it would be either/or. But it says AND so BOTH must happen. You can't impeach someone after they are gone because one of the conditions of impeachment conviction cannot be met. The article of impeachment was transferred to the Senate after Trump was gone so the impeachment trial is null and void.

 

[B. Kidd]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

"But for" causation is not enough to convict someone of breaking the law.

Otherwise, we'd all be criminals.

Consider this:

I hail a taxi cab and it stops at the curb to pick me up.

I tell the driver where I want him to go and the driver pulls away from the curb and hits a pedestrian.

"But for" me hailing the cab and telling the driver where I want him to go, the pedestrian would not have been hit by the taxi.

Should the pedestrian be allowed to hold me legally liable for his injuries?

A good analogy, however hitting a pedestrian is an unforeseen consequence.

The riot was not an unforeseen consequence or Trump’s rhetoric.

I don’t think Trump is a criminal, but his actions were so recklessly irresponsible I think he should be forbidden from holding public office again which is the point of the impeachment.

The point of impeachment is to remove someone from office. It only proves your reason means they cannot defraud him again.

The purpose of impeachment is to remove them from office AND to prevent them from ever holding public office again. Nearly all impeachments have taken place after the impeached official has been thrown out of office. The trial is to make sure Trump never runs again.

You're making that up. NAME A SINGLE PRESIDENT whose trial occurred after they had left office BESIDES Trump.

If you read the constitution, it clearly states that impeachment is for removal from office, AND barring from running for office again. The conjunction AND means BOTH must occur together. If it would say OR then it would be either/or. But it says AND so BOTH must happen. You can't impeach someone after they are gone because one of the conditions of impeachment conviction cannot be met.

Only the main condition! DL is a foreign Commie liar.

 

[Blackrook]

Lakhota was the person who urged Democrats to vote for Biden even though everyone knew he was the worst candidate possible.

I've been trying to tolerate your ignorant flaming and trolling - but I've had enough. I'm placing you on permanent ignore. Bye...

Actually, that makes me sad. However, I will continue to point out all the flaws in your arguments. You will be unable to respond.

 

[bodecea]

Lakhota thinks a logical explanation of the law is funny.

Very sad.

 

[bodecea]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

"But for" causation is not enough to convict someone of breaking the law.

Otherwise, we'd all be criminals.

Consider this:

I hail a taxi cab and it stops at the curb to pick me up.

I tell the driver where I want him to go and the driver pulls away from the curb and hits a pedestrian.

"But for" me hailing the cab and telling the driver where I want him to go, the pedestrian would not have been hit by the taxi.

Should the pedestrian be allowed to hold me legally liable for his injuries?

A good analogy, however hitting a pedestrian is an unforeseen consequence.

The riot was not an unforeseen consequence or Trump’s rhetoric.

I don’t think Trump is a criminal, but his actions were so recklessly irresponsible I think he should be forbidden from holding public office again which is the point of the impeachment.

The point of impeachment is to remove someone from office. It only proves your reason means they cannot defraud him again.

The purpose of impeachment is to remove them from office AND to prevent them from ever holding public office again. Nearly all impeachments have taken place after the impeached official has been thrown out of office. The trial is to make sure Trump never runs again.

You're making that up. NAME A SINGLE PRESIDENT whose trial occurred after they had left office BESIDES Trump.

If you read the constitution, it clearly states that impeachment is for removal from office, AND barring from running for office again. The conjunction AND means BOTH must occur together. If it would say OR then it would be either/or. But it says AND so BOTH must happen. You can't impeach someone after they are gone because one of the conditions of impeachment conviction cannot be met. The article of impeachment was transferred to the Senate after Trump was gone so the impeachment trial is null and void.

There's never been another President to tried to incite a coup to stay in power before either. Aren't you proud of your lard and orange master?

 

[dudmuck]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

Trump said the word 'fight' 20 times, and the word 'peacefully' once.

i can see it now, "Said peacefully once see, open and shut case Johnson."

its not just one speech though...


It's about four years of hateful, divisive rhetoric, fearmongering propaganda, lies, misinformation and conspiracies from Donald J Trump At his rallies, speeches, press conferences, interviews on FOX news and on Twitter. But more importantly it's about the months leading up to the 2020 general election and the months that followed where Trump perpetuated a baseless lie and conspiracy theory surrounding a "rigged" election that convinced nearly every single one of his supporters that the election was stolen from them. Take these things out of the equation and you have no storming of the capitol. Those mindless halfwits were there for Trump, they brandished their flags for Trump, they carried their banners for Trump, they broke into the capitol for Trump. They Rallied for him and chanted "Hang Mike Pence" for him. They erected a gallows for him. They beat police with an American flag for him. They were going to kill for him. They all did it for him and directly because of his actions and rhetoric. PERIOD.

Remember Jim Jones? Remember when 900 people committed mass suicide via cyanide laced punch? Do you think those poor people would have done so if they had listened to Jim Jones for the first time that day? Heard just one speech? **** NO, it took countless speeches, endless proselytizing and preaching, and many many lies. It wasn't just one speech that created the circumstances for the storming of the capitol, it was months, nay YEARS of speeches, rallies, and twitter rants that fueled a movement of hate and vitriol, division, fearmongering, bigotry, misinformation and conspiracies.

 

[Blackrook]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

Trump said the word 'fight' 20 times, and the word 'peacefully' once.

i can see it now, "Said peacefully once see, open and shut case Johnson."

its not just one speech though...


It's about four years of hateful, divisive rhetoric, fearmongering propaganda, lies, misinformation and conspiracies from Donald J Trump At his rallies, speeches, press conferences, interviews on FOX news and on Twitter. But more importantly it's about the months leading up to the 2020 general election and the months that followed where Trump perpetuated a baseless lie and conspiracy theory surrounding a "rigged" election that convinced nearly every single one of his supporters that the election was stolen from them. Take these things out of the equation and you have no storming of the capitol. Those mindless halfwits were there for Trump, they brandished their flags for Trump, they carried their banners for Trump, they broke into the capitol for Trump. They Rallied for him and chanted "Hang Mike Pence" for him. They erected a gallows for him. They beat police with an American flag for him. They were going to kill for him. They all did it for him and directly because of his actions and rhetoric. PERIOD.

Remember Jim Jones? Remember when 900 people committed mass suicide via cyanide laced punch? Do you think those poor people would have done so if they had listened to Jim Jones for the first time that day? Heard just one speech? **** NO, it took countless speeches, endless proselytizing and preaching, and many many lies. It wasn't just one speech that created the circumstances for the storming of the capitol, it was months, nay YEARS of speeches, rallies, and twitter rants that fueled a movement of hate and vitriol, division, fearmongering, bigotry, misinformation and conspiracies.

I asked for a citation to something Trump said to incite the riot. You didn't provide it.

 

[Lesh]

Stop the Steal!

FIGHT LIKE HELL!! That's what Trump told his rabid fans on January 6 What means did they have to stop the turnover of power? The voting was done. The court cases were done. That mob had only one means of "stopping the steal" as Trump called it and that is a violent attack on Congress to...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[bodecea]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

Trump said the word 'fight' 20 times, and the word 'peacefully' once.

i can see it now, "Said peacefully once see, open and shut case Johnson."

its not just one speech though...


It's about four years of hateful, divisive rhetoric, fearmongering propaganda, lies, misinformation and conspiracies from Donald J Trump At his rallies, speeches, press conferences, interviews on FOX news and on Twitter. But more importantly it's about the months leading up to the 2020 general election and the months that followed where Trump perpetuated a baseless lie and conspiracy theory surrounding a "rigged" election that convinced nearly every single one of his supporters that the election was stolen from them. Take these things out of the equation and you have no storming of the capitol. Those mindless halfwits were there for Trump, they brandished their flags for Trump, they carried their banners for Trump, they broke into the capitol for Trump. They Rallied for him and chanted "Hang Mike Pence" for him. They erected a gallows for him. They beat police with an American flag for him. They were going to kill for him. They all did it for him and directly because of his actions and rhetoric. PERIOD.

Remember Jim Jones? Remember when 900 people committed mass suicide via cyanide laced punch? Do you think those poor people would have done so if they had listened to Jim Jones for the first time that day? Heard just one speech? **** NO, it took countless speeches, endless proselytizing and preaching, and many many lies. It wasn't just one speech that created the circumstances for the storming of the capitol, it was months, nay YEARS of speeches, rallies, and twitter rants that fueled a movement of hate and vitriol, division, fearmongering, bigotry, misinformation and conspiracies.

I asked for a citation to something Trump said to incite the riot. You didn't provide it.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

 

[airplanemechanic]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

Trump said the word 'fight' 20 times, and the word 'peacefully' once.

Bernie Sanders told democrats to fight for progressive policies.

Obama says if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.

Tim Kaine says to "fight in the streets" against Trump.

Loretta Lynch tells people to march, bleed and die in the streets.

Hillary Clinton made a video telling people to fight for progressive policies, and to "keep fighting."

Comments? Concerns? Or is it only a problem if a republican does it?

Bernie Sanders Urges Democrats to Fight for More Progressive Policies

6 democrats who called for violence:

SIX PROMINENT DEMOCRATS WHO CALLED FOR VIOLENCE Against Americans That Don't Agree With Their Politics [VIDEO] * 100PercentFedUp.com * by Patty McMurray

Today's act of terror against a GOP Congressional baseball team by a Bernie Sanders supporter

100percentfedup.com

 

[Dragonlady]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

"But for" causation is not enough to convict someone of breaking the law.

Otherwise, we'd all be criminals.

Consider this:

I hail a taxi cab and it stops at the curb to pick me up.

I tell the driver where I want him to go and the driver pulls away from the curb and hits a pedestrian.

"But for" me hailing the cab and telling the driver where I want him to go, the pedestrian would not have been hit by the taxi.

Should the pedestrian be allowed to hold me legally liable for his injuries?

Funny. Impeachment is not a "criminal" process - it's a "political" process in accordance with the Constitution.

If it was according to the Constitution Trump would still be in office.

It's sadly funny just how dumb and uninformed you Trump NaziCons are. Everything that is taking place is 100% legal and in accordance with our Constitution, laws, and precedents.

He is not in office. Impeachment is to remove someone from office. Nothing could be plainer.

Actually, nothing could be dumber! Trump was impeached while in office! McConnell refused to start the Senate trial before Trump left office! Many officials have been impeached AFTER leaving office! History and precedents speak for themselves.

History Shows the Senate Can Hold an Impeachment Trial After Trump Leaves Office

The suggestion that impeachment applies only when officials are in office is not consistent with the uniform practice of impeachments in US history.

www.justsecurity.org

Nancy Pelosi held onto the impeachment article for a week and a half after they impeached him. Why would she do that if she was so sure he did something wrong and wanted him out of office? Mitch had already set the schedule for the senate, she waited, it was her loss.

Because the Senate was not in session and Mitch McConnell had already said he would not recall the Senate to hold a trial before the Inauguration.