Is the White House Weaponizing the DOJ and the FBI Against Political Opponents?

[mamooth]

How many days has it been since the raid? How long does the FBI expect the American public to wait for the reason that a 9 hour raid with 30 agents combing his home was truly necessary?

My, you _are_ an entitled one, even by Trump cult standards.

Like you, I also expect all law enforcement to instantly cater to my every tantrum, no matter how stupid and butthurt it is.

Oh wait, I don't, because I'm not a whimpering snowflake.

 

[Seymour Flops]

My, you _are_ an entitled one, even by Trump cult standards.

Like you, I also expect all law enforcement to instantly cater to my every tantrum, no matter how stupid and butthurt it is.

Oh wait, I don't, because I'm not a whimpering snowflake.

Yeah, they've only had seven years to justify the seven years of harassment, garsh, give 'em time!

 

[Puma Punku]

Perhaps I'm mistaken but, I believe that if the FBI did, in fact, find a "smoking gun" then, by now, we would have heard about it. The longer it takes the FBI to reveal what was so urgent that they had to take this historically tyrannical step, to finally find proof of Trump's criminal behavior... the more skeptical thinking Americans will be.

 

[Puma Punku]

It always take so much time. Think about this,,,,in todays modern world everything happens instantly. E-mails, phone calls, Zoom meetings. The whole world is moving a mile a minute. But ...whenever the legal system, especially the political legal system is involved it goes slower than a snail pace. Mueller took three years! Pelosi's husband is just now being slapped on the wrist. How long did they stretch out the Jan6 hearings? It's down right maddening.

 

[Leviticus]

And Trump controlled the Russian government at the time?

Even though the investigation failed to find solid evidence, doesn't mean that Trump, or someone in his campaign wasn't either directly working with Russia, or at least aware of what Russia was doing.

Even if they weren't working with them, if they knew Russia was interfering and didn't report it, that's technically a crime in and of itself under US law.

Then you take into account that Trump is known to be in debt to people directly linked to Putin, and his national security adviser was a Russian agent, on their payroll, and lied about it, and the fact that Trump Jr. attempted to bribe the Russian embassy into giving his father's campaign access to their secure phone lines to Moscow, and other such things, then you have a lot of circumstantial evidence that justified an investigation.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

It surprises me that this is such a mystery to TDS folks. Two words: America First.

Really?
Trump?

President Xi of China, and I, are working together to give massive Chinese phone company, ZTE, a way to get back into business, fast. Too many jobs in China lost. Commerce Department has been instructed to get it done!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)May 13, 2018

Too many jobs in China lost?

After decades of America hating Democrats and New World Order Republicans it is refreshing to have a president that puts America First just like the leaders of any other country not mired in Corruption put their countries first.

Trump is the most corrupt president since Reagan.

July 16 2018
US President Donald Trump, in a stunning rebuke of the US intelligence community, declined on Monday to endorse the US government’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election, saying he doesn’t “see any reason why” Russia would be responsible.

“I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,” Trump said during a joint news conference after he spent about two hours in a room alone with Putin, save for a pair of interpreters.

Candidate Trump spoke forgivingly about Russia's violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. He mused about lifting sanctions to smooth relations with Putin.
"The people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were," Trump told ABC News in July 2016.

The Trump administration pulled out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, an agreement banning nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers that was signed in 1987.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Even though the investigation failed to find solid evidence, doesn't mean that Trump, or someone in his campaign wasn't either directly working with Russia, or at least aware of what Russia was doing.

Sure, and even if a (seven year long) investigation found no solid evidence that you, Leviticus, conspired with Nicholas Roske, the guy who tried to assassinate Kavanaugh, that wouldn't mean that you, or someone you know wasn't either directly working with him, or at least aware of what Roske was doing. Just like with Trump, lack of evidence would not exonerate you.

So, you would be fine with the media reporting that you did collude with Roske?

Even if they weren't working with them, if they knew Russia was interfering and didn't report it, that's technically a crime in and of itself under US law.

Everyone with half a brain knows that Russia interferes with our elections all the time. Who do I have to report that to, so I'm not committing a crime?

Then you take into account that Trump is known to be in debt to people directly linked to Putin, and his national security adviser was a Russian agent, on their payroll, and lied about it, and the fact that Trump Jr. attempted to bribe the Russian embassy into giving his father's campaign access to their secure phone lines to Moscow,

"Directly linked?" Do you guys ever listen to yourselves? Flynn was paid by Russian companies for speeches, not much more than his travel expenses, and not nearly as much as Hunter Biden was paid by Ukraine's most corrupt oil companies for apparently nothing.

I'll need to know more about Trump Junior paying bribes. I googled "Trump Junior bribes," and found a story of Trump junior poaching a bear, but nothing about bribes.

and other such things, then you have a lot of circumstantial evidence that justified an investigation.

Yeah, they had one. It came up dry as a bone. Are you ready to move on yet?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Really?
Trump?

President Xi of China, and I, are working together to give massive Chinese phone company, ZTE, a way to get back into business, fast. Too many jobs in China lost. Commerce Department has been instructed to get it done!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)May 13, 2018

Too many jobs in China lost?

Trump is the most corrupt president since Reagan.

July 16 2018
US President Donald Trump, in a stunning rebuke of the US intelligence community, declined on Monday to endorse the US government’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election, saying he doesn’t “see any reason why” Russia would be responsible.

“I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,” Trump said during a joint news conference after he spent about two hours in a room alone with Putin, save for a pair of interpreters.

Candidate Trump spoke forgivingly about Russia's violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. He mused about lifting sanctions to smooth relations with Putin.
"The people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were," Trump told ABC News in July 2016.

You miss the point, by design or by misunderstanding. I could pick that post apart as I have so many other, like the one above.

That Trump even said "America First," put him far ahead of openly anti-American Democrats like Clinton, Obama, Sanders and AOC (the future of your party). It also put him leaps and bounds ahead of Republicans who never talked about doing what is best for America, out of fear of being called a "white nationalist," by a snotnose like Cortez.

A couple of examples of foreign policy you disagree with does not take away from the fact that Trump kept U.S. interests in mind when securing the border, keeping taxes low, and reducing unemployment levels to the lowest in history.

The "US intelligence community," including the FBI's targeting of U.S. citizens, is one of the most un-American organizations in history, with the possible exception of the CPUSA. They conspired against the duly elected president starting when he announced his intention to run, precisely because they knew that they had no hold on him, as they do the other Deepstaters who normally run for president.

The Trump administration pulled out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, an agreement banning nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers that was signed in 1987.

1987? Who was president then?

Anyway, I'm glad he pulled out of it, without even knowing the details. Enough of these one-sided unverifiable and unenforceable treaties that the U.S. honors, but not our adversaries.

You many not remember how much the left loved Russia when it was the home to the Soviet Union. You may disagree with Trump improving relations with Russia, but at least he did it in order to further the interests of the U.S., while at the same time arming the Ukrainians, as Obama refused to do, and Clinton would have never done. The Russians did not invade Ukraine while Trump was president, but hardly waited a year to do it when Biden got in.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You miss the point, by design or by misunderstanding. I could pick that post apart as I have so many other, like the one above.

That Trump even said "America First," put him far ahead of openly anti-American Democrats like Clinton, Obama, Sanders and AOC (the future of your party). It also put him leaps and bounds ahead of Republicans who never talked about doing what is best for America, out of fear of being called a "white nationalist," by a snotnose like Cortez.

Just because Trump claims "America first"................................doesn't make it true.

Because of his stupid tariffs on China, Trump bailed out US farmers to the tune of $48 billion.
Instead of finding the goods elsewhere,or bringing those jobs back to the US, he signs a new trade agreement INCREASING trade with them, by $200 billion a year.

A couple of examples of foreign policy you disagree with does not take away from the fact that Trump kept U.S. interests in mind when securing the border, keeping taxes low, and reducing unemployment levels to the lowest in history.

Biden just did.
Biden is creating US jobs, not ONE republican voted for the bill, either.
Guaranteed, they'll sure take credit, when a plant or two is being built in their state.

The "US intelligence community," including the FBI's targeting of U.S. citizens, is one of the most un-American organizations in history, with the possible exception of the CPUSA. They conspired against the duly elected president starting when he announced his intention to run, precisely because they knew that they had no hold on him, as they do the other Deepstaters who normally run for president.

Sure.................."duly elected" Trump LOST the popular vote BOTH times he ran.

1987? Who was president then?

The other traitor..............Reagan.

Anyway, I'm glad he pulled out of it, without even knowing the details. Enough of these one-sided unverifiable and unenforceable treaties that the U.S. honors, but not our adversaries.

You many not remember how much the left loved Russia when it was the home to the Soviet Union. You may disagree with Trump improving relations with Russia, but at least he did it in order to further the interests of the U.S., while at the same time arming the Ukrainians, as Obama refused to do, and Clinton would have never done. The Russians did not invade Ukraine while Trump was president, but hardly waited a year to do it when Biden got in.

Sure, run with that.

 

[Leviticus]

Sure, and even if a (seven year long) investigation found no solid evidence that you, Leviticus, conspired with Nicholas Roske, the guy who tried to assassinate Kavanaugh, that wouldn't mean that you, or someone you know wasn't either directly working with him, or at least aware of what Roske was doing. Just like with Trump, lack of evidence would not exonerate you.

So, you would be fine with the media reporting that you did collude with Roske?

Everyone with half a brain knows that Russia interferes with our elections all the time. Who do I have to report that to, so I'm not committing a crime?

"Directly linked?" Do you guys ever listen to yourselves? Flynn was paid by Russian companies for speeches, not much more than his travel expenses, and not nearly as much as Hunter Biden was paid by Ukraine's most corrupt oil companies for apparently nothing.

I'll need to know more about Trump Junior paying bribes. I googled "Trump Junior bribes," and found a story of Trump junior poaching a bear, but nothing about bribes.


Yeah, they had one. It came up dry as a bone. Are you ready to move on yet?

The Mueller report states that while they didn't find enough concrete evidence to file charges, that there was clear circumstantial evidence that lead them to beleive that something was going on.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The Mueller report states that while they didn't find enough concrete evidence to file charges, that there was clear circumstantial evidence that lead them to beleive that something was going on.

"clear circumstantial evidence that lead them to beleive that something was going on?"

I don't believe that is a quote from the report. Something was going on, sounds pretty lame even for the Mueller report.

They dropped the case for lack of evidence. In the united states, lack of evidence equal not guilty, I.E innocent until proven guilty.

I know that gets in the way of a good story, sometimes.

 

[Leviticus]

"clear circumstantial evidence that lead them to beleive that something was going on?"

I don't believe that is a quote from the report. Something was going on, sounds pretty lame even for the Mueller report.

They dropped the case for lack of evidence. In the united states, lack of evidence equal not guilty, I.E innocent until proven guilty.

I know that gets in the way of a good story, sometimes.

When did I say that I was stating exact quotes from the report? I was paraphrasing the report.

 

[Seymour Flops]

When did I say that I was stating exact quotes from the report? I was paraphrasing the report.

Please quote the part you're paraphrasing. I knew the report was silly and ignorant, but I didn't know it was that silly and ignorant.

 

[forkup]

Which is fine. That "I've lost all respect for you!" with the expectation of causing angst for the person it is said to, is a teenage device to derail a conversation with an adult. You may remember that I make my living helping behaviorally challenged teenagers learn to better themselves. Such tricks do not phase me. I enjoy my job, so I'm happy to help you for free.

That tells me that you did not watch and listen to the video clip. The editing came right after Karine denied that she talks about Trump, so the Youtuber edited in several past examples of Karine obsessively talking about Trump.

Hillary was allowed to decide what documents to turn over, while Trump had his home invaded, and they took everything they could get their hands on. So that was different. Hillary was allowed to wipe her stolen documents with Bleachbit, while Trump took advice from the FBI on how to best preserve and safeguard the documents he took as a part of more than two hundred year old presidential precedent. Hillary smashed her government issued devices with hammers to make sure the FBI could never check them, while Trump returned his completely intact, so that was different.

Actually, he can claim that in casual conversation. He would be meaning it in the colloquial sense. If you've ever been in the military, which of course you have not, you know that the lowliest private will say, "Don't walk on my floor!" if he has just mopped it. No one accuses him of stealing the floor.

He could legally claim it in court. The court may disagree, but they won't punish him for claiming it.

Your language is imprecise, sir, for such an important topic.

The court's ruling on presidential powers over classification made no exception for nuclear secrets.

Of course he did. No doubt he called his attorney and his end sounded like this:

"I'd like to take some of these documents with me and secure them at Mar-a-Largo. But some of them are classified, do I need to have Mar-a-Largo converted to a secure facility with a SCIF? What? I can just declassify them under my authority as president? The Supreme Court firmly said so? Great!

Then, I declassify them all. Bigly!"

There's no legal reason for him not to have done that and no way the Keystone Kops/KGB/Woke Mob at the DOJ/FBI can ever . . . ever . . . prove that he did not.

This one was another busto, forkup. Don't worry. These TDS members of government have more than two more years for more of these clownshows.

BTW, I couldn't help notice that your first post on this thread was at about 2:00 A.M. Did you notice that my reply was about 6:00 AM? I was just getting up at six, but I'm guessing you were still up at two? That's a big part of your problem, right there.

Maybe I should start a thread called "Advice to a young man on how to be a better man." I won't mention your name specifically, but you'll know that it's my effort to help you improve.

with the expectation of causing angst for the person it is said to

is a teenage device to derail a conversation with an adult.

Really? You are the one who had a problem with my tone. I responded to it by explaining the reason for it. My intention is not to "cause you angst" but to explain my reasoning. A reasoning you confirm by every single post because you are simply incapable of showing any sign of intellectual honesty.

Maybe I should start a thread called "Advice to a young man on how to be a better man." I won't mention your name specifically, but you'll know that it's my effort to help you improve.

What is this exactly? If not what you just accused me of?

He could legally claim it in court. The court may disagree, but they won't punish him for claiming it.

They call this a red herring. Another way to derail conversations. You are perfectly aware of what I meant or you wouldn't comment on the imprecise language while at the same time completely ignoring the point. Namely that documents produced by agencies of the federal government can't be considered personal property of the former president. As is described in the presidential record act. Meaning HE HAD NO RIGHT TO TAKE THEM... PERIOD classified or declassified.

As for your thing. Making bad faith arguments in a court of law can result in sanctions. Just ask Sidney Powell.

Hillary was allowed to decide what documents to turn over, while Trump had his home invaded, and they took everything they could get their hands on. So that was different. Hillary was allowed to wipe her stolen documents with Bleachbit, while Trump took advice from the FBI on how to best preserve and safeguard the documents he took as a part of more than two hundred year old presidential precedent. Hillary smashed her government issued devices with hammers to make sure the FBI could never check them, while Trump returned his completely intact, so that was different.

Hillary wasn't allowed to decide what documents to turn over, as is shown by the fact that her entire e-mail server was asked for. The difference is that Hillary did and Trump didn't as is shown by the fact that there was a subpoena for them and it literally required the FBI to go to his house to take them after his lawyer LIED about possessing them. And I don't think you want to go through the rabid hole of destroying documents. Press Statements in Response to Media Queries About Presidential Records. So again best possible result. Hillary and Trump have been treated the same. Destroying your premise.

That tells me that you did not watch and listen to the video clip. The editing came right after Karine denied that she talks about Trump

Lol, so let me get this straight. You straight up deny that in the clip you provided the press secretary didn't make a point that she clearly did. I TIMESTAMPED it for you. But instead of simply conceding the point you move the goalposts and then claim I didn't pay attention to your clip?

You gave me some unsolicited, condescending, and completely inappropriate advice so I'll respond in kind. Try the be a better man. Because from where I'm sitting I'm seeing a partisan hack lacking any sense of self-awareness.

 

[forkup]

What did he do that was illegal? Describe the precise action and the precise law it violated.

Obstructing an official proceeding

18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

www.law.cornell.edu

He wanted the certification of the election results stopped

Inciting a rebellion

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

www.law.cornell.edu

He had a rally in which he riled up his supporters, and send them to the Capitol although he was aware they were armed and mad.

Conspiracy to defraud the government

923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

He and his cronies tried to execute a multi-pronged scheme to prevent his successor to assume power after Trump lost the election in which the events of Jan 6th were one prong.

Your defense would be that Trump couldn't have known his supporters would break into the capitol, and as a defense, it might be enough to cast reasonable doubt.

I however don't think it is reasonable to claim that someone who was at the center of a several months campaign casting doubt on an election result, who called for a protest he himself described as "going to be wild", who knew some of his supporters to be armed, who said to them to go to the Capitol, and who didn't step in in ANY WAY while they where attacking cops and breaking into the capitol wasn't the instigator of that act.

If someone douses a floor with gasoline, lights up a cigarette, and tosses that cigarette on the floor. Claiming that the ensuing fire that he doesn't try to put out depite him having fire fighting equipment handy, has nothing to do with him would be hard.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Really? You are the one who had a problem with my tone. I responded to it by explaining the reason for it. My intention is not to "cause you angst" but to explain my reasoning. A reasoning you confirm by every single post because you are simply incapable of showing any sign of intellectual honesty.

What is this exactly? If not what you just accused me of?

I see what you're saying. I hear you. I chide you for having a condescending tone and then I take a condescending tone with you. Guilty. I did take a condescending tone.

But it's like if you went to see your doctor and started explaining medicine to him in a condescending tone, based on your watching lots of Youtube advertisements that start out "Your doctor doesn't want you to know about this simple change of diet . . . " Your doctor's answer will probably sound condescending, but much more appropriately so than your condescending tone in speaking to him.

They call this a red herring. Another way to derail conversations. You are perfectly aware of what I meant or you wouldn't comment on the imprecise language while at the same time completely ignoring the point. Namely that documents produced by agencies of the federal government can't be considered personal property of the former president. As is described in the presidential record act. Meaning HE HAD NO RIGHT TO TAKE THEM... PERIOD classified or declassified.

Why prosecute Trump first? Every single president in history has taken documents produced by federal agencies out of the White House when they left. The Presidential Records Act was passed in 1978. When they get finished prosecuting Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, they can start on Trump.

Unless there is some extra-legal reason to go after Trump first? What might that be?

As for your thing. Making bad faith arguments in a court of law can result in sanctions. Just ask Sidney Powell.

Hillary wasn't allowed to decide what documents to turn over, as is shown by the fact that her entire e-mail server was asked for.

" . . . was asked for?" Who asked for it and why did she not immediately turn it over to the agency that asked for it? She never turned it over, were you under the impression that she did?

This is why I can't help but be condescending with you at times. Either you made that up, or your read it in some liberal rag that has no respect for truthfulness.

The difference is that Hillary did and Trump didn't as is shown by the fact that there was a subpoena for them and it literally required the FBI to go to his house to take them after his lawyer LIED about possessing them. And I don't think you want to go through the rabid hole of destroying documents. Press Statements in Response to Media Queries About Presidential Records. So again best possible result. Hillary and Trump have been treated the same. Destroying your premise.

Hillary's email server was a physical object, that she never gave to the FBI or anyone else. That wouldn't have been a problem if Hillary and Trump had been treated the same, because the FBI would have raided her home and taken it, without allowing her lawyer to observe, and then released a nearly completely redacted version of the supposed justification, that after seven years of fruitlessly trying to find something - anything - to pin on Hillary. Treated the same? I don't give you credit for much knowledge and understanding. But I know that you are too smart to believe that.

That server not only contained thousands of classified documents, that Hillary had zero power to declassify, it was connected the internet, and less secure than gmail, according to even the pro-Clinton experts. Instead of raiding her home, which they did to Trump, they allowed her to tell them what documents she should give them, and to destroy whatever she chose not to turn over.

They have obviously not been treated the same. That's absurd.

Lol, so let me get this straight. You straight up deny that in the clip you provided the press secretary didn't make a point that she clearly did. I TIMESTAMPED it for you. But instead of simply conceding the point you move the goalposts and then claim I didn't pay attention to your clip?

You gave me some unsolicited, condescending, and completely inappropriate advice so I'll respond in kind. Try the be a better man. Because from where I'm sitting I'm seeing a partisan hack lacking any sense of self-awareness.

It's been a while since you posted, so I don't even remember what point you were claiming was made by the video. Sorry, I'm not going to go re-read the whole thread.

 

[surada]

Maybe some of the Democrats on here can answer that. This one could not:



What, I'm trying to figure out is why Karine Jean-Pierre did not just say "No, of course not." How could it be proven otherwise? They will never admit it, true though it obviously is. She has shown willingness to lie before, why not now?

Is she afraid that the room will laugh so hard that the conference cannot go on? Is she afraid of a follow up question and is stalling by saying it's not a yes or no question?

Or . . . is there a document or tape about to be released that shows the WH for sure weaponizing the DOJ against political opponents? It would have to be a heavily smoking gun, not just a trail as from a cigarette in an ashtray, but big puffs of cigar like smoke for even the liberal media to say, "yeah . . . ok." Like Creepy Joe saying, "I'm just glad you guys were able to sic the DOJ and the FBI on Trump, like I told you to, since he is my most feared political opponent."

I don't doubt he might say that, but I'm not sure how the tape would leak. Unless it was one of the people that Kamala Harris treated like dirt.

Nope. Trump did it to himself. He lost against the librarians at the National Archives.

 

[surada]

I see what you're saying. I hear you. I chide you for having a condescending tone and then I take a condescending tone with you. Guilty. I did take a condescending tone.

But it's like if you went to see your doctor and started explaining medicine to him in a condescending tone, based on your watching lots of Youtube advertisements that start out "Your doctor doesn't want you to know about this simple change of diet . . . " Your doctor's answer will probably sound condescending, but much more appropriately so than your condescending tone in speaking to him.


Why prosecute Trump first? Every single president in history has taken documents produced by federal agencies out of the White House when they left. The Presidential Records Act was passed in 1978. When they get finished prosecuting Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, they can start on Trump.

Unless there is some extra-legal reason to go after Trump first? What might that be?

Hillary's email server was a physical object, that she never gave to the FBI or anyone else. That wouldn't have been a problem if Hillary and Trump had been treated the same, because the FBI would have raided her home and taken it, without allowing her lawyer to observe.

That server not only contained thousands of classified documents, that Hillary had zero power to declassify, it was connected the internet, and less secure than gmail, according to even the pro-Clinton experts. Instead of raiding her home, which they did to Trump, they allowed her to tell them what documents she should give them, and to destroy whatever she chose not to turn over.

They have obviously not been treated the same. That's absurd.

It's been a while since you posted, so I don't even remember what point you were claiming was made by the video. Sorry, I'm not going to go re-read the whole thread.

You start with a lie.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Obstructing an official proceeding

18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

www.law.cornell.edu

He wanted the certification of the election results stopped

Inciting a rebellion

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

www.law.cornell.edu

He had a rally in which he riled up his supporters, and send them to the Capitol although he was aware they were armed and mad.

Conspiracy to defraud the government

923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

He and his cronies tried to execute a multi-pronged scheme to prevent his successor to assume power after Trump lost the election in which the events of Jan 6th were one prong.

Your defense would be that Trump couldn't have known his supporters would break into the capitol, and as a defense, it might be enough to cast reasonable doubt.

I however don't think it is reasonable to claim that someone who was at the center of a several months campaign casting doubt on an election result, who called for a protest he himself described as "going to be wild", who knew some of his supporters to be armed, who said to them to go to the Capitol, and who didn't step in in ANY WAY while they where attacking cops and breaking into the capitol wasn't the instigator of that act.

If someone douses a floor with gasoline, lights up a cigarette, and tosses that cigarette on the floor. Claiming that the ensuing fire that he doesn't try to put out depite him having fire fighting equipment handy, has nothing to do with him would be hard.

I get that you didn't like Trump riling up his supporters. I get that you are fine with Democrats riling up BLM and ANTIFA for a year and a half previous to that. You never blamed the murders, arson, rapes, lootings, assaults, and intimidation of children committed by those rioters on the Democrats who encouraged them, so I'm not going to blame Trump for a broken window for which a woman was summarily executed by a Democrat, and some congresspersons having to put on sneakers, in fear of angry cheated voters.

 

[surada]

I get that you didn't like Trump riling up his supporters. I get that you are fine with Democrats riling up BLM and ANTIFA for a year and a half previous to that. You never blamed the murders, arson, rapes, lootings, assaults, and intimidation of children committed by those rioters on the Democrats who encouraged them, so I'm not going to blame Trump for a broken window for which a woman was summarily executed by a Democrat, and some congresspersons having to put on sneakers, in fear of angry cheated voters.

The Democrats didn't rile up BLM.. they were protesting police brutality which doesn't affect most of us. You're making a false comparison. Remember the Taskforce for 21 century Policing?

Trump threw that out along with the Pandemic Handbook.

You need to work on your integrity.