Trump Can Be Prosecuted For Jan 6 For Just Sitting On His Hands

[skews13]

Alschuler’s argument comes in two parts. First, he argues that Trump’s failure to do anything to stop the riot was in and of itself a violation of the Constitution.

The Constitution gave Trump a clear legal duty to intervene. Article II, Section 3 provides, “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision permits good-faith exercises of law-enforcement discretion, but a president unmistakably violates his duty when he refuses to enforce the law because he wants a crime to occur—when, for example, he hopes to advance his own interests through the criminal conduct of others. As abundant evidence shows, that’s what transpired on Jan. 6.

There’s another reason Alschuler believes Trump’s inaction rises to the level of criminal conduct—he had a duty to prevent others from being harmed.

Even if his direction to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell” was not intended to start a riot, it led to violence and placed the Vice President and members of Congress in peril. A person who creates a physical danger—even innocently—has a legal duty to take reasonable measures to prevent injury from occurring. Someone who’s started a fire can’t just let it burn out of control.

Alschuler believes prosecuting Trump for his inaction would remove any roadblocks the First Amendment could throw up if he were ever held to account for the events of Jan. 6. While conceding that a court could rule Trump’s words at the Save America Rally were protected speech, he believes that “Trump’s refusal to enforce the law” is absolutely fair game. In that case, even if his remarks were theoretically protected speech, “they could be received in evidence as proof of his intent.”

Trump can be prosecuted for inaction during Jan. 6 insurrection, says legal scholar

For most of us, it’s an article of faith that Donald Trump is responsible for the Jan. 6 insurrection, regardless of Republican sentators’ refusal to vote for a conviction in his second impeachment. But a prominent legal scholar believes there’s...

m.dailykos.com

Perfectly reasonable legal arguments. I’ve said all along, Trump loses in court b cause of Article ll responsibility of the President to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

 

[pknopp]

Trump isn't going to be prosecuted. Just as Fauci isn't going to be fired and Trump never prosecuted Hillary.

 

[progressive hunter]

Alschuler’s argument comes in two parts. First, he argues that Trump’s failure to do anything to stop the riot was in and of itself a violation of the Constitution.




There’s another reason Alschuler believes Trump’s inaction rises to the level of criminal conduct—he had a duty to prevent others from being harmed.



Alschuler believes prosecuting Trump for his inaction would remove any roadblocks the First Amendment could throw up if he were ever held to account for the events of Jan. 6. While conceding that a court could rule Trump’s words at the Save America Rally were protected speech, he believes that “Trump’s refusal to enforce the law” is absolutely fair game. In that case, even if his remarks were theoretically protected speech, “they could be received in evidence as proof of his intent.”

Trump can be prosecuted for inaction during Jan. 6 insurrection, says legal scholar

For most of us, it’s an article of faith that Donald Trump is responsible for the Jan. 6 insurrection, regardless of Republican sentators’ refusal to vote for a conviction in his second impeachment. But a prominent legal scholar believes there’s...

m.dailykos.com

Perfectly reasonable legal arguments. I’ve said all along, Trump loses in court b cause of Article ll responsibility of the President to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

whats that say about biden and the border??? bidens southern invasion has lasted months and the riot on the 6th last what 15 minutes??

this is another case of terminal TDS from another moron,,

 

[Otis Mayfield]

trump was the head of the military

It was literally his job to use the military to protect the Capitol.

 

[progressive hunter]

trump was the head of the military

It was literally his job to use the military to protect the Capitol.

the capitol wasnt in danger and he did ask the mayor and capitol police to put more national gaurd in place but they refused..

not sure if you knew but our POTUS isnt a dictator and cant just sick the military on disgruntle people,,

 

[martybegan]

Alschuler’s argument comes in two parts. First, he argues that Trump’s failure to do anything to stop the riot was in and of itself a violation of the Constitution.




There’s another reason Alschuler believes Trump’s inaction rises to the level of criminal conduct—he had a duty to prevent others from being harmed.



Alschuler believes prosecuting Trump for his inaction would remove any roadblocks the First Amendment could throw up if he were ever held to account for the events of Jan. 6. While conceding that a court could rule Trump’s words at the Save America Rally were protected speech, he believes that “Trump’s refusal to enforce the law” is absolutely fair game. In that case, even if his remarks were theoretically protected speech, “they could be received in evidence as proof of his intent.”

Trump can be prosecuted for inaction during Jan. 6 insurrection, says legal scholar

For most of us, it’s an article of faith that Donald Trump is responsible for the Jan. 6 insurrection, regardless of Republican sentators’ refusal to vote for a conviction in his second impeachment. But a prominent legal scholar believes there’s...

m.dailykos.com

Perfectly reasonable legal arguments. I’ve said all along, Trump loses in court b cause of Article ll responsibility of the President to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

He told them to be peaceful, and he can't use the actual US military due to the concept of posse comitatus.

 

[martybegan]

trump was the head of the military

It was literally his job to use the military to protect the Capitol.

Posse Comitatus prevents him from using federal troops in this case. This wasn't an insurrection or a rebellion.

 

[Resnic]

They can, they will fail, and then they will create something else to try and prosecute him with. They are just throwing everything at the wall hoping something will stick.

Eventually they will get to " trump can be prosecuted because right before the insurrection he took a piss and didn't wash his hands afterwards".

 

[JustAGuy1]

Alschuler’s argument comes in two parts. First, he argues that Trump’s failure to do anything to stop the riot was in and of itself a violation of the Constitution.




There’s another reason Alschuler believes Trump’s inaction rises to the level of criminal conduct—he had a duty to prevent others from being harmed.



Alschuler believes prosecuting Trump for his inaction would remove any roadblocks the First Amendment could throw up if he were ever held to account for the events of Jan. 6. While conceding that a court could rule Trump’s words at the Save America Rally were protected speech, he believes that “Trump’s refusal to enforce the law” is absolutely fair game. In that case, even if his remarks were theoretically protected speech, “they could be received in evidence as proof of his intent.”

Trump can be prosecuted for inaction during Jan. 6 insurrection, says legal scholar

For most of us, it’s an article of faith that Donald Trump is responsible for the Jan. 6 insurrection, regardless of Republican sentators’ refusal to vote for a conviction in his second impeachment. But a prominent legal scholar believes there’s...

m.dailykos.com

Perfectly reasonable legal arguments. I’ve said all along, Trump loses in court b cause of Article ll responsibility of the President to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

Not that I care, but why do you insist on embarrassing yourself like this?

 

[john doe 101]

Trump isn't going to be prosecuted. Just as Fauci isn't going to be fired and Trump never prosecuted Hillary.

It's a hypothetical legal argument. Above your pay grade.

 

[BlindBoo]

Of course he should be prosecuted. He was derelict in his duties. But the time has passed. The Neo-GOP stood with him and are increasing their election subversion capacity. The only way to rid ourselves of this new fascist threat is at the ballot box in every election, local, state, and federal. Vote the liars out.

 

[pknopp]

It's a hypothetical legal argument. Above your pay grade.

I’ve said all along, Trump loses in court b cause of Article ll responsibility of the President to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

Trump is never going to court over this.

 

[john doe 101]

I’ve said all along, Trump loses in court b cause of Article ll responsibility of the President to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

Trump is never going to court over this.

Never said he was.

 

[JustAGuy1]

It's a hypothetical legal argument. Above your pay grade.

Aren't you just the cutest little egotist?

 

[martybegan]

It's a hypothetical legal argument. Above your pay grade.

It's a bigger reach than thinking the Jets have a chance at the Super Bowl this year.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Alschuler’s argument comes in two parts. First, he argues that Trump’s failure to do anything to stop the riot was in and of itself a violation of the Constitution.




There’s another reason Alschuler believes Trump’s inaction rises to the level of criminal conduct—he had a duty to prevent others from being harmed.



Alschuler believes prosecuting Trump for his inaction would remove any roadblocks the First Amendment could throw up if he were ever held to account for the events of Jan. 6. While conceding that a court could rule Trump’s words at the Save America Rally were protected speech, he believes that “Trump’s refusal to enforce the law” is absolutely fair game. In that case, even if his remarks were theoretically protected speech, “they could be received in evidence as proof of his intent.”

Trump can be prosecuted for inaction during Jan. 6 insurrection, says legal scholar

For most of us, it’s an article of faith that Donald Trump is responsible for the Jan. 6 insurrection, regardless of Republican sentators’ refusal to vote for a conviction in his second impeachment. But a prominent legal scholar believes there’s...

m.dailykos.com

Perfectly reasonable legal arguments. I’ve said all along, Trump loses in court b cause of Article ll responsibility of the President to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

Dailykos..go figure.

But hey, you go ahead and keep on harping about it, because it does make you a very stupid progressive slave, who must follow what your masters tell you to say.



The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is admitting there is no evidence of any sort of insurrection or coup plot regarding the Jan. 6 protest at the U.S. Capitol. This admission drives a stake through the heart of the Democrats’ push to bring the war on terror to the homeland for use against their political opposition.

FBI Admits There is No Evidence of Any Insurrection Plot ...​

realpoliticalnews.com/articles/fbi-admits-there-is-no-evidence-of-any-insurrection-pl…

 

[martybegan]

Aren't you just the cutest little egotist?

Also Skews doesn't present it as a hypothetical, but as usual, as SJW gospel because it finds another lame way to gun for ORANGE MAN BAD.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

They can, they will fail, and then they will create something else to try and prosecute him with. They are just throwing everything at the wall hoping something will stick.

Eventually they will get to " trump can be prosecuted because right before the insurrection he took a piss and didn't wash his hands afterwards".

He did?



That is sarcasm....

 

[martybegan]

Dailykos..go figure.

But hey, you go ahead and keep on harping about it, because it does make you a very stupid progressive slave, who must follow what your masters tell you to say.



The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is admitting there is no evidence of any sort of insurrection or coup plot regarding the Jan. 6 protest at the U.S. Capitol. This admission drives a stake through the heart of the Democrats’ push to bring the war on terror to the homeland for use against their political opposition.

FBI Admits There is No Evidence of Any Insurrection Plot ...​

realpoliticalnews.com/articles/fbi-admits-there-is-no-evidence-of-any-insurrection-pl…

I used to delve into DK for opposition opinions, but then realized CNN went far enough off the SJW deep end that I could use them and spare myself the mental damage of Kos.

 

[toobfreak]

Trump Can Be Prosecuted For Jan 6 For Just Sitting On His Hands​

I see, so if Trump can be held responsible for a few kids breaking in some glass windows, then maybe we should start looking into holding Biddum responsible for sitting on his hands for the past 10 months doing nothing while this supply shortage problem developed to where now you can have trouble buying a gallon on milk!