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

[Turtlesoup]

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.

Funny, but I don't see you advocating for Biden and son and Pelosi and son to be put in prison for not executing the laws regarding taking bribes. Nor do I see you going after any dems for allowing and encouraging BLM to riot, loot, and burn..

 

[martybegan]

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!

The other precedent is can we hold all those Dem mayors and governors that let lefty protesters run rampant for months, even setting up rebel controlled enclaves?

 

[toobfreak]

The other precedent is can we hold all those Dem mayors and governors that let lefty protesters run rampant for months, even setting up rebel controlled enclaves?

In theory but the GOP are spineless lapdogs.

 

[Correll]

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.



....

In the Salem witch trials, Cotton Matters introduced a girls' DREAMS as evidence of witchcraft.


You can prosecute any crime, as long as the court is corrupt enough or hysterical enough to go along with your shit.



That does not make it right. That does not mean that you won't be building up a payback that will make you cry like a little girl.

 

[Claudette]

andaronjim
I'm wondering why Pelousy is wasting time and tax dollars on investigation the FBI has already done???

 

[dudmuck]

andaronjim
I'm wondering why Pelousy is wasting time and tax dollars on investigation the FBI has already done???

FBI investigates crimes of individuals.
But, due to such a large event, it requires investigation at a higher level. Especially since member of congress itself were aiding the insurrection.
The commission takes a similar purpose to the 9/11 commission 20 years ago, because policy changes are required to prevent it from happening again.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

trump was the head of the military

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

You know that can't happen.

 

[airplanemechanic]

trump was the head of the military

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

If the president is the head of the military then the senile child molester needs to be prosecuted for the 13 servicemen and women that died because of his incompetence in getting us out of Affygannystan.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

How would you suggest Trump enforce the laws when his chief law enforcement agent refused to admit that he has the authority to do so.
From what I can see from these hearings....the swamp was against him, including his own VP.
Who could he get to repel an angry mob at the Capital?

If he were to hire a bunch of thugs to go over there.....Pelosi and Schumer would accuse him of insurrection.
Since he chose not to do anything....they still accused him of insurrection.
It doesn't matter to a pack of compulsive-liars what you do....because they're going to lie about it.

 

[mudwhistle]

trump was the head of the military

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

Yeah.....and his Chief of Staff was literally alerting the Chinese to his every move.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

The claims are delusional.

Hey! You have a duty to make some use of logic. You fail to do so. Therefore you are subject to prosecution.

 

[Rogue AI]

Sounds like good precedent for Harris and the border, right?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

andaronjim
I'm wondering why Pelousy is wasting time and tax dollars on investigation the FBI has already done???

I am no longer andaronjim as that name seemed to be flagged always, and banned by a certain cretin mod who i shall not name.