Impeaching Donald Trump - Again
On Wednesday, Jan 6, 2021, while Congress was attempting to certify Joe Biden as having won the election to become the next President of the United States, Donald Trump was exhorting the mob he had spent the previous week or two calling together to attack Congress and stop the process. He constantly used the word "fight", and making boxing gestures, to rile up the crowd and then sent them on their way into infamy.
March they did and they violently invaded the Capital building intent on stopping the certification of Joe Biden. They murdered one police officer in the process and one of their own was killed climbing in a window. Three others died of "medical conditions" brought on by the riot.
For this, since Mike Pence won't invoke the 25th Amendment to prevent Trump from causing further harm to the nation, the Democrats (and several Republicans) have set a course to impeach Donald Trump for the second time.
The charge - Inciting an Insurrection.
It is expect it will pass the House on Wednesday, Jan 13; seven days before Biden is sworn in.
They understand they can't stop Trump from doing further damage, only Pence can do that, but there are two reasons to continue. Donald Trump must be punished in some fashion for trying to overthrow the gov't and to prevent him from ever running for office again.
Passing the House is not at issue. Getting a conviction in the Senate is and is probably an uphill road given the number of Republican Senators who have sold their soul to the devil.
So where does the count stand right now? First consider that if there is a trial, it will happen after the new Senate is sworn in. If so, then you have 50 Democrats and Independents who will vote to convict. Another 17 Republicans are needed. Who is probably on board now according to their latest statement or past actions?
1. Sen Romney (voted to impeach last time)
2. Sen Murkowski (statement)
3. Sen Collins (she knows now Trump didn't "learn his lesson")
4. Sen Sasse (statement)
5. Sen Toomey (statement)
So 12 more are needed.
Who will probably vote to acquit Trump:
Sen Cruz
Sen Hawley
Sen Scott
Sen Blunt
Sen Graham
Sen Hyde-Smith
Sen Tuberville
Sen Marshall
Sen Lummis
Sen Kennedy
That is 10 Senators with no character. That leaves 35 more which are up for grabs.
What will they do?Sen Pat Toomey joined Sen Lisa Murkowski in demanding Trump resign. When will Collins and Romney join them?
--- Realistically an impeachment takes time. There are preparation times, the President has a right to defend himself (I know you don't feel he should be given that right, but it's the law)... Then the cases are presented and argued. There is no time to impeach the President. But it's a great story for the media to run with.
Tonight Nancy Pelosi answered that question on 60 Minutes when Leslie Stahl asked it. She said that the impeachment can continue after Trump leaves office. When the new congress comes in, she says there will be enough votes in favor for a trial and conviction. It does not matter that he is out of office. The point is that he would be impeached and forever barred from running for office.
Your last sentence says it all: a 100% political ploy, and one that has nothing to do with the "good of the country". It might keep Democrats from facing Trump again the future (politics again, not the good of the country) but that's it. Haven't we seen enough of such posturing and hand wringing?
Yes, it is a political action, by definition. But the goal is saving America from Trump. The damage he has done now is incalculable.
It was said (and I was one of them) before he was elected that he was an existential threat to the existence of America as a viable democracy - and that has now been borne out.
For example, texts from one of the insurrectionists carrying zip ties said his intent was to kill Pelosi. That alone should get him 50 years (unfortunately it is only 5 to 10 years).
I wonder if the very fact that members of Congress having to be moved to a safe location doesn't make every insurrectionist who entered the Capital subject to the statutes covering these offenses - 18 U.S.C.It will be very good for the country if Trump can never run for office again, which would be the case should be be found guilty.
And your point is? I think this country has seen enough of Trump's posturing. Let's see, the current count at the Capitol is five dead. If that isn't enough, the count of deaths from Covid-19 is growing exponentially and his lack of responsibility and leadership in taking the necessary steps to help the states remedy their situations while he postures about "poor little me, I won the election, but they cheated" was wearing thin before the rush on the Capitol Building that he fomented. "Fight! Fight! Fight!" (His words, not mine.) I don't think I need a source here, as those words were straight from the horse's mouth.)
Agreed, except about having enough patriotic Republicans to get a conviction. I just don't have confidence they can find the 12 that is needed.
But...remember there will be a new Congress after Jan. 20, and that means more Democrats to vote for conviction. That and along with more moderate Republicans who are getting tired of his seditious antics and are horrified at his supporters insurrection, it may just fly.
Thank you for posting this. I was not aware that a President can be impeached after they leave the office. I learned something.
Thinking of this problem logically I think Impeaching Trump might exacerbate his supporters?Why should we not do what is right just to appease delusional criminals? Peaceful Trump supporters will remain peaceful, so I am assuming when you wondered what it would do to his supporters you were referring to the violent ones. Or, did you mean all Trump supporters, yourself included?
I meant any of Trump's supporters that have strong enough opinions and feeling to show up and protest, and yes riot for a cause they seem to believe in.
I do not support any form of violence for any reason. I do not support those that most likely will show up at the inauguration and get violent.
I did not say anything in regards to my own view in respect to should Congress go ahead with impeachment. I just shared a thoought. that impeaching Trump might exacerbate his supporters. I did not give an opinion one way or the other --- "Why we should not do what is right just to appease delusional criminals?"
I can see your point, I am all for doing anything we would traditionally do and pretty much handle what might happen. I hope as I did in 2016 that no one shows up to protest on Inauguration Day. However, we live in a country where we have the right to protest peacefully. I hope Trump supporters will be peaceful and be heard due to numbers, not violence.I have no problem with protesters and actually admire those who stand up for their beliefs by lawfully working within the system to create change. However, those who are protesting because they think the election was stolen are simply furthering propaganda created by Trump. They still have a right to peacefully protest; I just think they are dangerously wrong to help keep alive the delusions of a mad man.
Actually, in part, we agree. I believe protests can lead to change if peaceful and need to be completely lawful. You may want to look at the problem as if you were outside the box. The people that are showing up for Trump have different views. Some really feel Trump is fully telling the full truth about voter fraud, and at this point, they don't care about seeing facts. Some are hung up on the facts just might be there, and they want all avenues investigated. They are not willing to listen to a blanketed media explanation that there is no there... They feel they deserve an investigation and at this point do not respect the Representatives in Washington or their state governments.
I had just hoped some sort of common sense could have prevailed. Just my opinion, but a short investigation may have shown many that their voices were being heard. Now, we have something that is just developed into something I never thought I would see, violent Americans fighting other Americans. This is only going to get worse. Many have been pushed too hard, and are not willing to listen or be pushed any further.
The politicians are playing one against another. Have you noticed much of what is being talked about is how unsafe "they felt", what danger "they were in"? Is there any mention of why these protesters showed up that day, what made them travel to Washington from all over the US? I feel the country is in a real crisis. And we don't have anyone in Washington that seems to have the know-how to stop a rolling tank!
Would it not have been easier to prove delusions false, if they are false? Instead of pushing at people that are not going to be pushed any longer.The delusions have already been proven to be unfounded.
"The politicians are playing one against another."
At what point do we hold citizens responsible for their inability to discern truth from fantasy? This is not the first conspiracy theory swallowed by a considerable chunk of people. And, regardless, we cannot stop speaking truth, or avoid doing what is right, just to avoid angering those who are perpetually angry about something.
Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job. There should be no question that Trump deserves to be impeached for his actions surrounding his election loss.. No question.Please keep in mind, it is your opinion that some citizens are delusional in regard to the election outcome and that you feel all has been proven to be delusional. However, many are not willing to believe the election was not stolen due to fraud. Where does that leave us? You tell me
It's is just my opinion that the politicians are playing one against another. And a bit too large of a subject to go into on a chat...
"At what point do we hold citizens responsible for their inability to discern truth from fantasy? " You might start by realizing
that the other side fell they are speaking the truth --- Again where does that leave us?
I have no problem if Congress feels they need to impeach Trump. I have looked at this logically. I have once again pulled up rules of impeachment.
There is absolutely not enough time to impeach Trump a second time.
I listened to Alan. Dershowitz's opinion on the subject. He pointed out the legalities f a late impeachment, and that there just was not enough time, and that it would be totally unconstitutional.
So asks yourself why are the Dems proceeding? Could it be a political ploy to continue to stir up the once again hate? Yes, hate, IMO they certainly realize they are stirring up Trump supporters, and appeasing the "other side". Is this truly responsible Government, pitting citizens against one another. And at a time when emotions are high. It is time that we need sensible heads in Washington.
This is a cheap despicable political ploy... It will lead to violence, and we all can blame those that we hired to Govern, that has gone amuck.
I have no argument on a legal impeachment of Trump. I have a huge problem that at this point it appears it would be an illegal impeachment.
The Dems' know very well this is not the right time to pour more fuel on a fire. Common sense should rule while we have people willing to step up and fight for what they believe in.
One thing is clear we have hundreds of thousands of people that as you claim are delusional. They feel the other side is delusional. Again, where do we go from here? Pour on a shit load of fuel or step back and let the temperature cool down?
I guess we will see how this all plays out. I see no solution at this point because we have two sides well dug in. And we have few in Washington that are willing to just stop the BS for even a while...
"There should be no question that Trump deserves to be impeached for his actions surrounding his election loss. No question."
You might want to realize there are many on the right that there is no question Trump should not be impeached,
It would seem you just can't realize yes your opinion is important, but so are many other American's opinions.It is a fact that no massive election fraud has been found. Time to accept reality and stop calling lies "opinions."
Again that is your fact, your option, maybe even mine. But it is very realistic to realize it is not the opinion of a great many American's. Just pointing out what is at this point very apparent. So how far does our opinion influence any that don't respect it?
I have simply been trying to make a point."But it is very realistic to realize it is not the opinion of a great many American's."
Yes, that is onvious. We must stop validating it, though, by calling for further investigarions. That only fuels the crazy that was invented whole cloth by our insane president.
Time to stop, or you become part of the problem. There is a reason even loyal Trump toadies are now flatly stating the election was not stolen. It's time to stop the dangerous appeasement of an insane president and his delusional supporters.
Are you going to keep feeding the fantasy?
"Just my opinion, but a short investigation may have shown many that their voices were being heard. " - What, in your opinion, did the DOJ and Bill Barr do prior to him announcing their was "no there, there"? Why does that no qualify as a "short investigation"
"Is there any mention of why these protesters showed up that day, what made them travel to Washington from all over the US? " - Yes, the President called them to show up for the previous two weeks. He spoke, they listened.
There is no question Trump has put America in a real crisis, on that we agree. I do not agree that there is "nobody" in Washington to do something about it. The Democrats, independents, and a few Republicans (who were shook out of their delusion by the coup attempt) are doing something about it.
You write " 'They' feel they deserve an investigation and at this point do not respect the Representatives in Washington or their state governments. " and I would add to that list judges. Who then is left to conduct this "investigation"? Giuliani? Sydney Powell? Face it Sharlee, 'they' will only believe someone who says there was widespread fraud.
"Would it not have been easier to prove delusions false" - Apparently no -
Since it has been proved false over and over again by almost uncountable authorities to the satisfaction of everybody but Trump supporters.
Anything short of that will be looked at as invalid by Trumpers.
And finally, was this written to minimize the danger of death the lawmakers faced? "The politicians are playing one against another. Have you noticed much of what is being talked about is how unsafe "they felt", what danger "they were in"? "Sharlee, I think they did. They had election recounts and recounts of recounts. Then REPUBLICAN Secretaries of State verified that their elections were honest and there was no voter fraud. Ratffensperger in GA, for one, was threatened and then called by Trump and ordered to "find him" the votes he needed. What more do you think might have been done? I don't believe anything short of taking away votes from registered voters and giving them to Trump would have satisfied these hardheads.
Yes, I was surprised as well.
As to exacerbating his supporters, I compare that to the US policy of never giving into a terrorists demands. That policy has probably led to fewer demands, but unfortunately it has probably also led to some hostages being killed.
The question then is, did the policy lead ultimately to fewer hostages in total being killed. All one can hope for is that the answer is yes.
And yes, I think you are probably right, it will exacerbate them because so many of them have been radicalized already.I hope Trump supporters will be peaceful, violence is not the way to be heard. I think numbers speak louder than violence.
We will start seeing how this will come down shortly. Apparently, the Internet is ablaze with plans from those who really don't want to see Trump go to cause lot's of violence starting the 17th. Not sure why that date, but that is what I heard.
I doubt Trump will listen to them but both Barr and the White House lawyer told him it was a really bad idea to self-pardon. But with things like the DC attorney general now threatening to investigate and, if necessary, take to court people like Trump, Jr., and Giuliani for inciting to riot.
I finally heard the words Junior and G spoke and those are, without a doubt, well within the meaning of "incite". You have to string a bunch of Trump's statements to get to the context where he was wanting to happen what did happen.
It will be whole different story if the FBI finds that there was pre-planning and coordination days ahead of the attempted coup and it leads back to Trump.
Wednesday is the day the first President of the United States will be impeached twice. Trump loves records and being the "only one". I think he got what he wanted.Not sure about Wednesday, the Senate is not in session until I believe Jan 19th. It seems this impeachment is political in nature, once again it will be up to the Senate. I would think if the Dems intend to go ahead with the impeachment they might wait until after Trump has left office. Timing is against them, and I venture to say they know this and are showboating. Which in my opinion at this time the country does not need this kind of politicking. It's perfectly what has so many furious.
It would seem they are very serious about impeaching Trump. So they can have at it. Let the chips fall where they may.I have searched for and so far have been unsuccessful in finding a reference on whether a president can be "impeached" (the House part) after they leave office. It is clear they can be convicted (the Senate part) after they leave office.
Unless Trump resigns or Pence removes him via the 25th Amendment (both seem very unlikely), the House will "impeach" him on Wednesday, they have enough votes including some Republican ones. Their feeling, as is mine, is that Trump, who instigated the attack on the Capital, must be held accountable. Based on your "showboating" reference, I am guessing you are not one of those.
As to "political in nature", yes, all impeachments are political in nature, by definition. It can't be anything else but.
The question is will McConnell bring the Senate back before the 19th to hold a trial while he has the majority, or will he forgo that and turn it over to Schumer, when the Democrats will hold the majority, after Biden is sworn in.
To me, it really doesn't make a difference - the goal is to prevent Trump from ever again holding office. Putting Trump in jail won't do the trick because politicians have won elections before from behind bars. No, the House and the Senate need to vote to bar him from ever doing to America what he has done so far.
Bottom line, someone must be held accountable for the coup that took place on Jan 6, 2021, too steal a phrase, a day that will live in infamy.Have you listened to the full speech Trump gave at the rally? If not you may want to listen to it. Not sure any of what he said could be enough to say he incited a riot? He did go on and on about voter fraud, but he also talked about much much more.
In my view, we have some very big problems brewing that will affect the country much more than we can imagine. It might be time for all to realize this division has come to a boiling point, and we don't have a government in place that is for the people. They are for themselves, keeping themselves in power, and doing so by dividing the country. My gosh just look at the little they really do.
I am sickened at the thought of where America has ended up...Hmm . . ., I watched his rally—live. And it is my opinion that he did incite the mob. Repeating 38* claims of fraud, (*that was a pundit's count, I didn't count them), bringing the rally-goers to a frothing fevered pitch, certainly equates to "inciting" in my mind. His body language, his raising of his arms in rhythm with their crescendos of approval, the look of appreciation on his face for the adulation of his supporters all point to incitement for me
I don't need specific black and white words. I watched the effect. I think Pres. Trump incited this rally of supporters to act. He didn't need to actually say to go forth and sack the Capitol to be guilty. In my opinion, of course.
GAI also started to watch the rally, halfway through I told my husband let's go for a walk. Trump was certainly headed down a path that was provoking. I did not see the entire rally until after the riot. One could see Trump wa,s not in his usual rally state of mind. He was blatantly pissed off and ranting.
In the comment you have responded to I was pointing out that I could not go out on a limb and say one way or another that it was enough to incite a riot. I think it would be up to a given individual. I was not incited, I was disgusted with his ranting. However, as for me, I turned it off. It certainly could incite an individual to become very angry if they selected to listen to all his accusations of voter fraud. I am just not willing to say it incited the majority of that crowd. If you want my opinion many traveled to Washington to cause problems. Trump's speech had little to do with what they went there intending to do.
Hopefully, I put this statement into a better context ---"Not sure any of what he said could be enough to say he incited a riot? He did go on and on about voter fraud, but he also talked about much much more".". . . I was not incited, I was disgusted . . ."
That was also what I felt as I watched it. But . . . I was watching it from the comfort of my home, with no 'skin in the game.' I can easily imagine that the rally-goers, that made a great effort to get there and came with emotions high in the moment, felt something different.
GAI just had another listen to the speech in full. Listening for any words that were strong and could truly be more than a dog whistle. It would seem listening to the speech he was differently addressing only his supporters, not including all American's. He spoke strongly on what he felt he accomplished, and what the crowd could expect to lose under Biden. He made the crowd feel included, by pointing out that they built America. He over and over-claimed the election was stolen. In closing, he did bring up the word "fight". First stating "we fight like hell" and then "and you need to fight like hell". He asked the crowd to march to the Capitol and "give support to those that would need it".
I agree if one were there with all the excitement of the day, and some depending on the individual certainly could be incited start trouble. I feel many preplanned the attack.I have no thoughts on the "pre-planned" part. I wouldn't doubt it, and feel it is probably true, but the "who" is something I have no opinion on. For some reason, I don't feel the administration would be involved in any pre-planning of the assault, but that is just a thought.
It seems we agree on Trump's effect, (and responsibility), in the rally part of your comment.
GAI am not yet willing to go as far as accuse Trump of directly conspiring with the seditionists, but he is a master manipulator; after all, he talked 70,000,000 people into voting for him.
Consider that he has been agitating for something like this since well before the election. He has been prepping the ground with his lies about a rigged election. After he actually did lose he then changed his tune to "the election was stolen, I won by a landslide, and YOU need to help me take it back".
What do you think these people, who he has been working on for two months, was going to do when Trump called them together in Washington D.C. on Jan 6th and told to "march" on the Capital.
No question in my mind he orchestrated the attack on the Capital with his rhetoric. The fact that he snuck "march peacefully" into his remarks on the 6th doesn't make up for all of the angry protestations he has made in the months before.I see your point and appreciate the way you presented your comment. I agree that Trump is a manipulator, not sure I would say he is a master at it. I have always noted when he sought to manipulate a situation. I think he is transparent in that respect. It is for that reason I turned his rally off a third of the way through on Jan 6th. I felt I had been hearing his voter fraud speech for many months.
I feel many planned to attack the Capitol due to being exposed to him claiming the election was stolen.
His months of rhetoric certainly is responsible for some becoming violent. I am not sure or probably never will be sure if Trump felt the protest would turn violent or if he hoped it would. My gut tells me he did not want violence but wanted a huge crowd to be noted by all. I don't think we will ever know what Trump was thinking.Did you not see the reports that Trump was obviously enjoying watching the insurrection on TV and could not understand why those around him were not pleased? Did you not hear him say, after the fact, "we love you," to the insurrectionists?
I think he could not care less about the deaths and destruction.How said that what is the person's name that made that claim? And did you read the words before and after the "we love you"?
"I know your pain, I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order,” Trump posted on Twitter. “We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this, where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us. From me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you, you’re very special. We’ve seen what happens, you see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know you how feel. But go home, and go home in peace.”Yes, long after the attack began, resisting sending in the Guard and after tremendous pressure to act by Pence, the Cabinet and Republican party leaders.
Let alone reports that members of Congress were giving reconnaissance tours of the Capitol building to members of militia groups on January 5th.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mikie-sherri … 06364.htmlI put some research into the subject of who did what, and who was responsible for the ball being dropped. It was well known two weeks prior to the Jan 6th that the rally would take place, and would most likely attract a huge crowd. Hard to find factual statements with sources that ID themself. I was able to finally find an article that quotes Kash Patel, Miller's chief of staff.
"While Trump was less involved in giving orders Wednesday, he gave Miller the green light earlier in the week.
"The acting secretary and the president have spoken multiple times this week about the request for National Guard personnel in D.C.," said Kash Patel, Miller's chief of staff. "During these conversations, the president conveyed to the acting secretary that he should take any necessary steps to support civilian law enforcement requests in securing the Capitol and federal buildings."
The deployment of the National Guard was anything but immediate.
The Department of Defense is the lead federal agency in these situations. Pentagon officials said that law enforcement was overwhelmed and responses were slow because they believed the amount of law enforcement personnel leading up to Wednesday's events was adequate"
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did … ol-1560186
It was not Trump that dropped the ball it appears to be Miller, as well as D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser.Your research must have missed the part where Trump was unavailable because he was glued to the television and couldn't be reached by aides during a national crisis.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-w … ace-2021-1
No, but I read the transcript.
While unlike Junior and Guiliani, who called for violence directly, and Rep Brooks who came very close with his "kick them (the legislators) in the ass" encouragement, Trump did not say directly "go up there and storm the Capital".
But, when you put together his inflammatory speech in the weeks previously, his direction to show up on the 6th, and the violent rhetoric that was in his speech to a crowd he riled up himself, I think a reasonable jury would find him guilty. (After I read back and saw GA's post, he said it much better than I.)
And I agree with "I am sickened at the thought of where America has ended up..." - the difference being is I know who put us here.
The one thing what would defuse a lot of this is if Trump would come out and admit he has been lying all of this time and that the election was fair and that he lost.
I'm sorry I don't have my legal eagles at my beck and call anymore to answer your question about impeachment, but I don't believe a president can be impeached once he is out of office. The idea of impeachment is to get him out of office, but the trial and conviction after he is out is to keep him from ever being able to serve in that office again. Now that is my understanding, but if someone can find evidence to the contrary, I welcome the correction.
I wasn't aware of it either until I watched 60 Minutes. Yes, I believe that will exacerbate things even more, but I don't think this country should be held hostage in fear of stirring up the hornets again. I used to work at our State Capitol Complex (retired in 2017). I just hope my former coworkers and friends there stay safe because I've heard they are preparing for trouble.
I appreciate your comment. You always keep a very level head. I just posted a lengthy post to Pretty Panther. It is hard to discuss such a complicated subject on a chat. But I hoped to offer an opinion. I made an attempt to look at the problem from all sides. While not showing any bias. I think the time has come that we all back up a bit and consider all sides. Because in the end, this is becoming very serious. Please have a look at the comment I left Pretty... I would appreciate your viewing it.
I'm sorry, but referring to holding a president accountable for his potentially criminal behavior as a "cheap despicable political ploy" shows you are not succeeding in your attempt to be unbiased. What would Trump have to do to warrant impeachment, in your mind? Kill someone? One could argue he is directly responsible for inciting murder.
This comment was just a short message to MIZBEJABBERS. You certainly did get your point across with your comment to me. I read it I responded. best I could to your opinion. I certainly am very informed about how you feel about the impeachment, and lots more. We disagree on the timing of the impeachment, and that I see it as a political ploy just due to it looks as if it would be against the constitution, and it would seem there is just is not enough time to conduct an impeachment hearing. If it is lawful and they can pull it off, they can have at it.
I think the act will cause a great divide (which it is apparent many want)and could increase the possibility of violent riots. But, many are hopeful for more red meat to chat about..."But, many are hopeful for more red meat to chat about..."
Not me, I want to never see or hear from Donald Trump again. I'd prefer to erase him forever from my thoughts, and even from my memory. But a narcissist of his magnitude will not go away on his own. He must be impeached so he can never run for office again.
It's pretty sad that private companies recognize how dangerous he is and have the wherewithal to do something about it, but not our elected officials.I used the word many to make sure I did not point a finger at anyone. And the red meat was not Trump, it was impeachment the very act. I can understand your thought in regard to stopping him from running again. However, the Dems are in a tight spot and only have a double-edged knife to weaponize.
Can't see the country winning with more fuel being added to a really big fire. This is where I wish we had level headed people in Washington. IMO the Dems are politicking with lives. However, their indignation was very predictable. Not unexpected. They always sink low and could care less about the consequences. Never have, never will.My Gawd, Trump incited an insurrection at the Capitol that resulted in multiple deaths and you think it's the Dems who "always sink low and could care less about the consequences."
Unbelievable.You said exactly what I was thinking. Trump incited an armed coup that led to five deaths and Shar thinks it's the Dems' fault.
The first thing a cult does is tell you everyone else is lying. The fact that all Trump supporters fell for Trump's fraud lies because they thought GOP election officials, Republican judges, the FBI headed by a Republican, and the DOJ headed by a very GOP partisan Bill Barr are all liars because they all disagreed with what their cult leader was saying is another one of the big reasons why this impeachment is a necessity.Just my personal opinion. I would think you would have acknowledged I never defend Trump personally unless I find his words or actions may have been misrepresented by media. I have several times added my thoughts on the rally that was held on Jan 6th. I saw a pissed off Trump and could see how it could incite some ( not all). And I did ask that some of what people were posting here be backed up with sources due to some statements Trump just did not make.
I think his words on the surface certainly could incite some individuals. I myself turned him off due to seeing how very mad he was, and that it was not what I had hoped to hear. I went out when I returned the rit was taking place. My, neighbor informed me of what was occurring.
I guess Mitch McConnell is sinking along with the Democrats because he just came out and said he is "pleased" the Democrats are impeaching Trump.
And with ridiculous statement, you show your true colors "They always sink low and could care less about the consequences. Never have, never will." You have drunk Trump's Kool-Aid.
Oh yes, the #3 Republican in the House is joining your hated Dems, how can that be? Could it be that you are wrongLast night Hannity stated "I spoke personally with Mitch McConnell representative and he claimed the New York Times article is inaccurate, and Mitch McConnell did not offer the opinion they printed.
I would think at this point we are owed a statement for Mitch McConnell. I am hopeful he will step up and give a press statement.
I have no problem moving ahead with whatever the Government presents. in regards to a legal impeachment hearing. I do have a real problem with any media printing statements that may not be true. This to me is a worse form of an incitement than any we have heard from Trump. Trump can be held accountable due to the words that came from his mouth. At this point, the media should be providing facts and only facts. No leaks or statements twisted out of context.
I just read the Article of Impeachment. Personally, I think it is weak as written.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics … index.html
Because we have watched all of this unfold in real time over two months, to those who hold my point of view, the case against Trump is overwhelming. But the written charge must present a case that is equally overwhelming for the benefit of those who might wonder what all of the fuss is about.
I don't think it does that. I think it just presumes everybody already knows the crimes that have been committed and I don't think they do - especially if all they consume is information from the right. (Such as Tucker Carlson saying this isn't impeachable.)Blackburn, Lankford, and Johnson are hard no's also - they were selling the election fraud claims. Cassidy from Louisiana, Rand Paul and Tim Scott drank the Trump Kool-Aid. Cotton, Mike Lee and Rick Scott just hate anything Democratic. Rubio is fighting Hawley and Cruz to be Trump's top lapdog.
Cornyn and Thune could be interesting.You may have read the FBI is warning about a plan to have armed protesters swarm all 50 state capitols on Inauguration Day.
In addition, the report of 4,000 armed militia planning to surround the U.S. Capitol.
If more violence does erupt next Wednesday, you can bet the House will send over the article of impeachment to the Senate within days. Plenty of Republican Senators will have a hard time rejecting it.
Also, news reports are now saying that McConnell favors impeachment to save what's left of the party. Or that he's terrified what Trump rioters will do next Wednesday.On top of that, three House members were linked to the sedition conspiracy by one of the rioters. I can see them being charged with sedition now.
I think, based on the evidence coming out, that because of weeks of Trump's lies, exhortations to do something to help him win, his throwing fuel on the fire it will be shown this invasion was pre-planned by members of Trump's militia. They knew they were being asked to stop the certification and so they prepared to do just that by bringing zip ties to tie up congresspeople, guns, bombs of various sorts, and bludgeoning instruments to help assault the Capital.Many of us said four years ago, and many times since, that Trump was a Clear & Present Danger to America, that he was an existential threat to democracy itself. It was easy to tell by looking at his past, how he ran his campaign, and how terrible his character was.
And now look at what his supporters and enablers have wrought. What happened on the 6th rests squarely on their shoulders. It was their willingness to accept his lies as truths and go forcefully to the mat to defend his indefensible actions that led directly to almost bringing down our government.
Since then, it was confirmed that he has never had a moral compass and that his only goal as president was to enrich himself and his family. Normally, that phrase would end with "and friends", but he has none.
As can be, of all people, Mitch McConnell. He just came out saying he was "pleased" the Democrats were impeaching Trump. He wants to purge the Republican Party of anything Trump. Some are now thinking he may vote to impeach to save the Republican Party.
Should Trump be impeached? Of course he should. Republicans should want it to save their party from themselves. Americans want it to 1) punish an insurrectionist, 2) prevent him from ever doing it again, and 3) prove to the world that the Impeachment Clause in our Constitution actually works. The World wants it in order to bring back a stable world order that Trump ripped asunder.
Who is responsible for Jan 6, 2021? A whole host of people. They worked together, sometimes in concert but often not, to set the stage such that the coup attempt was inevitable.
First and foremost is Donald Trump. Simply put, no Trump, no coup attempt. He spent 4 years cultivating and giving space to the far-right extremist who gathered at the Capitol to conduct their insurrection. His hate speech, his inflammatory speech, his constant lying, his Big Lie about winning the 2020 election, and finally his call to all those who wanted to "save the nation" to gather for his pity party about having the election "stolen" and then sent to the Capitol to do something about it - which they did.
But also complicit is the right-wing media, led by Fox Opinion, that spent 4 years amplifying Trump's, passing on Trump's inflammatory lies, adding to them with their own real fake news, willingly propagating Trump's Big Lie about winning the 2020 election. Without the right-wing media fanning the flames, much of the tinder which set the coup on fire would have been missing.
You also have so many of the Republican Congress who passed on or even encouraged Trump's most outrageous abuses of power, passing up the chance to be heroes by convicting Trump in the first impeachment, by assisting Trump in propagating the Big Lie about winning the 2020 election, and if several cases actually assisting the insurrectionists in their coup attempt. Without their active help, Trump could not have had his coup which he so desperately needed to overthrow the election and therefore the government.
Finally, you have the co-conspirators that make up at least 70% of those who identify Republican, including the pro-Trumpers in this forum. They decided, for unknown reasons, to suspend their critical thinking and bought into almost ever lie Trump promulgated including the Big Lie about winning the 2020 election. They amplified this lie on all social media platforms, including this forum, and gave the insurrectionists succor and support to do their foreseeable dirty deed on Jan 6. Again, without the active support of this mass of so-called patriots the take-over of the Capitol would not have happened.Now that President Biden is sworn in, the dark cloud of Trump that has spread across America and the world can begin to lift.
Two more Republicans voiced their sentiments that they would be willing to convict Trump of sedition if the evidence warranted it. These are Sens Portman and Cassidy. Even McConnell seems leaning that way.
Trump's defense will argue that 1) you can't convict an out of office president and 2) his words are protected speech (he didn't yell fire in a crowded theater).
The Democrats will argue that 1) history is on their side as far as holding a trial after an official subject to impeachment leaves office, 2) in any case, he was impeached while in office, 3) the constitution proscribes that the Senate will hold a trial for an impeached official, and 4) Trump's words over a period of time go far beyond the pale of protected speech.You're saying that Democrats will go back years if necessary to collect sound bites that prove "Incitement to insurrection" years later? Not that it would surprise me, but it still sounds like more legal shenanigans than honest and truth.
Periods of time could just mean the time Trump leveled false fraud charges made directly after the 2016 election, then the rhetoric used from October through January of this past year. Those are two clear periods of time where Trump made false claims to undermine our electoral process.
Well I think they should go back at least 40 years - he's been plotting to overthrow the government for at least that long. Should probably check out parents, grandparent, siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles too - you never know who might have place such thoughts in his evil mind.
Why, those people are not being impeached? Sounds like a case for the defense - blame Trump's daddy issues.
But they might find additional "evidence"! A childhood treatise on revolution, maybe, or a 3 grade drawing of the statue of liberty lying broken on the ground.
I mean, the utter failure to find collusion between Trump and Putin doesn't mean their witch hunts will fail every time! I bet they can find something they can spin or "interpret" into "incitement"!My, where have you been, on Mars with no TV? Here on Earth, we have two months of lies and violent rhetoric that all but told his militia to go storm the capitol. He not only yelled "fire" in a crowded theater, he screamed it, over and over and over and over again. After personally assembling his militia on Ellipse, he whipped his white supremist and Nazi friends into a frensy and on Jan 6. literally told them to march to the Capitol and "fight" to save the country - and they did exactly as he told them.
Yes, they will find "something". They will find thousands of inciting words he used and video/audio of his militia eating it up and tuning them into action. (ALSO, did you noticed he lied once again by telling his supporters he would march with them? Instead, he went to hide in the White House to watch his dirty work unfold.)
By the way, as you have obviously forgotten, then Russia investigation was not into Trump as you claim. It was into his campaign. He ONLY became a target when he obstructed the investigation by firing Comey. Facts Matter.
It sounds very much, Valeant, that Wilderness has no problem with the attempted overthrow of our gov't. Sad.
Nah, I think it turns Wilderness on just to play Devil's Advocate, even when he's unaware of the true facts of any case - like the St. Louis thing he brought up and then crashed and burned with a few days ago.
I am watching the memorial in the Capitol to the officer murdered protecting the same by Trump's militia on CNN.
I switched to Fake Fox News to see if they were covering it. As expected, they were not. Instead, there was lying Ingram castigating Dr. Fauci and other medical experts.- disgusting as ever.I see where what use to be the Republican Party became the Party of Trump-Q today when they didn't have guts, patriotism, pride, sense enough to strip the crazy QLady from her committee assignments.
Now the Democrats will have to do the work McCarthy was too chicken to do to rid the House of someone who supports the overthrow of our government and the assassination of the Speaker.Sort of to your point...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNUqPa2DT_kI just heard that crazy-ass bitch Qanon Taylor say there is no evidence a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11!
I WAS THERE.
A piece of the plane landed in the lawn of the building I was in. I felt my building shake when the plane hit.
I watched the very black smoke rise into a clear blue sky from the Pentagon.
I watched the stunned people from the Pentagon (some, my co-workers) wander down Hwy 1 getting away from the attack.
I learned that a friend of mine from OSD, Brian Jack, died on that plane that "didn't crash into the Pentagon", according to the hero of most of the House Q-Trumplicans who gave Taylor a standing ovation today. Disgusting. Sickening.
She, and anyone who defends her (which seems to be most of the Q-Trumplican Party), are, in my opinion, traitors to America.
Any responsible Republican should leave this shell of a Party (as 10s of thousands already have) and start a new one; let this symbol of everything patriotic Americans hate sink into the hell they have created around themselves and stop bothering good people.I agree with what you are saying. I went to high school with a man whose daughter was a flight attendant on one of those planes that "didn't hit the building." Tell him his daughter didn't die in that attack.
So, today, Rep. QAnon Taylor stood in front of the house and claimed that she had changed. She claimed that "she wasn't the woman who had made those claims." The media, yes, those dirty dogs, pointed out that she had still not apologized, and that she could have made her statements two weeks ago instead of waiting until she had to face the music. If she does get away with this, she is still going to have to face Nancy Pelosi, the woman she claimed should be killed in the insurrection, for the next four years.Well, she faced Nancy, one of the people Taylor-Green said should be dead, is having her way by doing what the cowardly Q-Trumplicans failed to do - strip her committee assignments.
The House Q-Trumplicans are proving how anti-American they are by siding with this traitor in large numbers. With 43 left to vote, only 2 real Republicans have voted to punish her for standing against America.
I have a feeling in two years the Q-Trumplicans will be smashed by the Democrats for control of the House. I can see the TV ads now pairing each Q-Trumplican with their support of Green and her cancerous views, to borrow a word from Mitch McConnell.Here is a summary of how Trump did over the last for years.
1, Public debt is at an all-time high (in constant dollars). While it will increase under almost any president (Clinton was the exception), Trump's various policies made it worse.
2 The public-debt to GDP ratio is at an historic high, beating even WW II
3. The population growth rate continues its decades long steady decline with Trump exacerbating things with his war on legal and illegal immigration. The long-term impact is lower GDP growth.
4. The long-term productivity growth rate is increasing ever so slightly, offsetting the population decline. However, the short-term productivity growth rate has been declining for the last 10 years. The combination is why neither Obama nor Trump could sustain a high GDP growth rate.
5. GDP under Trump ended up at 1.01% growth (worst growth of the last seven presidents). Take out the effect of the pandemic and it was 2.08%. Compare that to Obama's 2.11% from 2010 - 2017.
6. The Federal Deficit is higher than it has ever been, and would have been even without the pandemic
7. The Federal Deficit as a percentage of GDP is also at historic highs.
8. The Dow Jones is one of the few areas where Trump beat Obama - barely. In terms of 2016 constant dollars, Trump ended up (in fact spent most of the time) slightly above the upper boundary of the channel set by Obama.
9. Trump also did well with Real Disposable Income - Per Capita; comparable to Clinton and Nixon-Ford.
10. In terms of Average Weekly Earnings, Trump did OK. He didn't outstrip the last half of Obama's term, but he did have steady growth
11. Employment Participation Rate continued the improvement established by Obama and then tanked with the pandemic, it is still sliding and it shouldn't be but for Trump's gross mishandling of the response to the virus. We can see now what he "should" have done but didn't
Rather than lose this, I will continue on laterLooks like Bide will beat all records in regard to Nation Debt if the stimulus package passes. 1.9 trillion. He most likely will go down in history as the president that added the most to the National Debt. Too bad he has a pandemic that will add to cash borrowed and spent. Trump had the same burden that added to the National debt.
That is true about Biden and the Public Debt, it almost can't be helped by any president. The question is, why did it blossom so much.
Bush - his tax cut, the wars, and the recession
Obama - getting out of Bush's recession
Trump - his tax cut, the pandemic, the subsequent recession, and mismanaging the pandemic that exacerbated it all.
The other questions are once the pandemic is beat back 1) can the Debt - GDP ratio improve and 2) can the deficit be brought back down
Biden's proposed tax increases on the rich will definitely help there, which it has always done.
The $1.9 trillion stimulus will definitely help if it goes to those who will spend it compounded by reducing the infection/hospitalization/death rate of Covid so that more businesses can open back up.
I hope you are happy to see that Biden is finally doing things that Trump should have done vis-a-vis:
1. Promoting mask wearing and social distancing
2. Greatly improving the vaccine distribution
3. Greatly improving the rate of shots in arms
4. Using the Defense Production Act effectively to cover the shortfalls in PPE and vaccine production components.
5. Generally taking control of the pandemic response effort and putting real scientists in charge rather than political cronies.I appreciate your view, coming from the medical community I know a bit more about how hard it can be to control a virus and produce a vaccine. I am very sure all the companies are working to capacity to produce vaccines. You need to stop and think about the companies involved. They are supplying the world... Some are being overly critical of why more is not being vaccinated. The fact is we have never had to handle such a crisis, and it well appears all has and is being done as quickly as possible.
Most of the same people from Operation Warp speed are still handling the distribution of the vaccine. You need to remember OWS is responsible for setting up distribution.Yes, they are working to capacity. But Trump did nothing to increase that capacity. Biden, on the other hand, is doing many things to increase vaccine output., some of which I have already outlined.
Granted, we have never had a crises like this, but that is no reason you couldn't put your best minds to figuring it out. Trump didn't even try to do that, unlike what Biden is doing now. That is why we got off to such a chaotic, pitiful start which has cost thousands of needless deaths.
"and it well appears all has and is being done as quickly as possible." - definitely NOT true under Trump. Definitely TRUE under Biden.
No, the same people from OWS are NOT handling the distribution because distribution was not part of Trump's OWS agenda. Trump's solution was "we produced it, let others distribute it". He only wanted to get a vaccine ready, which he did. What happened after that was left to chance.
https://khn.org/morning-breakout/viewpo … nes-in-us/ (even Fox News was critical)
https://news.northeastern.edu/2021/01/0 … -be-fixed/Gen Perna has been kept on the Biden team and will continue to be in charge of vaccine distribution. Others from OWS are also being kept in their positions. he has even kept Dr.Fauci. which I question the reason, he has made so many mistakes from the very start. We can agree to disagree in regard to how Trump handled the crisis. I think he is the one that truly followed science. The vaccine is the only way to help stop the virus. Most claimed as well as Fauci it would take two to three years to get a vaccine. Trump got multiple. He ultimately got us what science indicated we needed --- a vaccine.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/0 … ion-455470
"Governors of both parties were being briefed Tuesday afternoon by Jeff Zients, coordinator of the Biden administration’s COVID response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky and Army General Gustave F. Perna, who is overseeing Operation Warp Speed, the national vaccine distribution program launched by the Trump administration." https://www.cbs17.com/news/national-new … to-states/And it is good he kept those people and now he can utilize them to actually come up with a plan to distribute the vaccines - something Trump failed to do which your link sort of proves.
Tell me one time Fauci got it wrong - make sure you give his complete quote including context. Your right-wing has taken many things he has said out of context and made you think they were mistakes when, if fact, they were not.At the very beginning of COVID, Dr. Fauci did offer very prudent advice, especially in regard to masks. He recommended what I knew as a nurse would help stop the spread of COVID. If you check the early stats and graphs one can see the virus was being controlled better than as months went on after he requested all wear masks in public places. In Michigan, we had the strictest of mitigations, and all were made to use these mitigations. As in other states, we saw little difference, then over the past months, our numbers grew, as one can see by the charts. I believe at some point scientists will document the mask-wearing during COVID was why it spread due to citizens not realizing how to use a mask. In many cases, the mask becomes Petrie dishes, and carry the virus to be spread.
Here are a few of the precautions medical personnel uses to safely wear masks.
Wash or sanitize your hands before and after putting on and taking off your mask.
Place your mask over your mouth and nose.
Tie it behind your head or use ear loops and make sure it's snug.
Don't touch your mask while wearing it.
If you accidentally touch your mask, wash or sanitize your hands.
If your mask becomes wet or dirty, switch to a clean one. Put the used mask in a sealable bag until you can wash it.
Remove the mask by untying it or lifting off the ear loops without touching the front of the mask or your face.
Wash your hands immediately after removing your mask.
Regularly wash your mask with soap and water by hand or in the washing machine. It's fine to launder it with other clothes.
And, here are a few face mask precautions:
As you see there are prudent rules that make mask-wearing safe. Do you think the majority of citizens follow these rules?
SO you ask what did Fauci get wrong, he told people to wear masks but did not provide them with safety rules in regards to how to wear a mask and get the benefit from wearing a mask.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhy2FgkP0Yw&t=66s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-j2c99iz60&t=37s
AS I have shared I will blame no one for this virus, and how it has been handled or how it will be handled in the future. I have knowledge of Virology, and I do feel all has been done that could be done. Mistakes were made, mistakes most likely will continue to be made. Think of this virus as a Cancer --- very hard to control, and no cure. We can hit it with a vaccine, and build a herd to really knock it down. It will mutate more quickly if it finds it can's infected. It can then denature itself to become a very non-virulent virus. It is one of the worst viruses on record, but hopefully, it will follow a pattren that most viruses take --- mutation.
I was so pleased to hear it has been mutating. It does appear it is infecting more people, but it's less of a killer. I follow the stat charts, which is a simple way to follow the ups and downs of the virus. I follow the need for hospitalization, these are also down. I pray every night this virus continues to mutate. Because it will be hard to grow the herd due to lack of vaccine. (which can be blamed on no one). The companies are producing the vaccines as quickly as humanly possible. One must realize they are supplying the world with vaccines.
Trump in 2020 - $2.2 trillion and $900 billion is $3.1 trillion.
Biden won't even come close to a record with $1.9 trillion.
Just curious, but how does a falling population equate to a bad thing? How does a falling GDP, if the per capita GDP
rises, equate to a bad thing?
Both seem positive to me.I think I offered this before. Economists have proven that GDP growth rate in the long-term is equal to the sum of the population growth rate plus productivity growth rate. In my hub I took the above information from, I graph that out and it holds generally true.
So, without an offsetting increase in productivity growth, a declining population growth must lead to a declining GDP.
Also, common sense says less people, less demand. Less demand leads to less supply. Less supply leads to reduced GDP.
And again, "per capita" has little meaning unless you are comparing two or more things with unequal baselines.
Finally, how does "How does a falling GDP, if the per capita GDP
rises, equate to a bad thing?" even happen?
Let's say GPD = $1,000,000 and population = 1,000,000 people at this moment in time. In this case, per capita GDP is $1.
Now, let's say the GDP "falls" to $500,000. The per capita GDP also falls to $0.50.
Now, let's say you meant to say "How does a falling population, if the per capita GDP rises, equate to a bad thing?"
So now consider the population falls by 10% to 900,000. One the face of it, that means per capita GDP "rises" to $1.11. But that is only true in the very, very short-term. If population falls 10%, then it would be reasonable to assume that demand falls 10%, everything else being equal. If demand falls 10%, wouldn't you think GDP would fall along with it by roughly 10%? If so, then per capita GDP remains at $1.
But the question is, if the population falls 10%, would it only be a 10% reduction in GDP? One might guess that the consumption component might fall linearly, but will the rest? Will the investment component fall evenly, or will it fall drastically since there is no need to invest in anything, at least for the short to medium term. Will gov't spending likewise fall at a pace equal to the decline in population?
So yeah, it is a bad thing.You missed the entire point.
If population falls 10%, production falls 10%, demand falls 10% and GDP falls 10%, the GDP per capita stays right where it was. Everyone is just as wealthy, without using the resources needed to provide for a larger population.
So what's the problem with falling population, as long as GDP per capital (and all the rest) remain static...per person? While it is true that production rates due to large scale manufacturing might fall, in a country the size of the US a 10% decline in population will not produce that decrease. In addition, increases in personal productivity (per person) will tend to cancel out the smaller losses in productivity from smaller manufacturing facilities."If population falls 10%, production falls 10%, demand falls 10% and GDP falls 10%, the GDP per capita stays right where it was. " - Too bad it doesn't work that way, it is not linear.
When a factory closes because of a 10% drop in demand, you just don't fire only10% of the direct line workers who were making the product. No, you fire 100% of all workers which reduces their contribution to GDP by more than 10%, you cut off utilities which reduces that portion of GDP, you stop buying all of the materials that went into making the product, ... you get the idea. It is not linear which is why your claim is wrong.
" In addition, increases in personal productivity " - how does that work?
Another way to look at it is that productivity is equal to GDP per capita.(which is why GDP growth = Pop growth + Productivity growth works.
Here is the way that formula works. Given that population growth goes negative and assume that GDP growth negative then the only thing that can keep the formula in balance is that Productivity Growth (aka GDP per capita) must also decline.
It is later.
12. The unemployment rate ended at 6.3%, it was 4.7% when Trump took over. It continued the slow decline until Sep 2019 when it reached 3.5%. Because of the pandemic, it quickly rose to a modern record of 14.8% in April 2020. Had Trump followed Biden's current playbook, would it have fallen back down faster - probably.
13. Under Bush, the non-Institutionalized population (from where the workforce comes) grew at 1.15%; under Obama 1%. Under Trump, a poor .48%. His war on immigration was partly responsible for this poor showing.
14. Job openings continued Obama's upward trend until early 2018. It then increased sharply until early 2019 when it peaked and started a rapid decline, ending (prior to the pandemic) up about where it started in 2017.
15. The number of job hirings and firings continued the trend set by Obama until early 2019 when it flattened out.
16. Food stamp usage continued the same rate of decline established under Obama until the pandemic hit. Trump made a concerted effort to deny food stamps to many people.
17. Manufacturing jobs increased at the rate set under the Obama administration until April 2019, when if flattened out. It then cratered, as expected, with the pandemic.
18. Manufacturing expanded under Trump at about the same level as under Obama's first term and part of his second. Like Obama, it couldn't be sustained for the entire term and began a decline in late 2018 until it started contracting in late 2019. It then went into a steep decline with the pandemic.
19. Consumer Sentiment was on a shallow decline from the beginning of Trump's term - until the pandemic when it collapsed.
20. Total Auto Sales were flat for all of Trump's term. The only bright spot where Trump continued Obama's rate of increase was in Domestic Light Trucks.
21. The number of uninsured Americans increased dramatically under Trump showing the success of his efforts to deny people health insurance.
22. America's carbon footprint, in spite of all of Trump's efforts to increase pollution, continued to decline throughout his term. Then the pandemic kicked in and reduced it further.
23. During the Obama presidency there were three pandemics and less than 12,000 deaths, mostly from H1N1 (I don't know if any Americans died from Ebola or Zika. To date, there are over 474,000 deaths from coronavirus with the total to far exceed half a million Americans - most who didn't need to die but for Trump's ineptitude.
Silly you, Wilderness, there you go again making false exaggerations - years, my word. Try Two Months, that is all they need.
While there will probably not be enough QOP Senators to find their spine and convict Trump for his obvious insurrection, the State of Georgia may give America justice yet for Trump's criminal activity.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/08/politics … index.htmlDo you think it was a wise move for De's to push forward with the impeachment. When it would appear from day one it would fail?
Absolutely! Even if you know the jury is not going to convict a murderer, the prosecutors don't say to the murderer, "oh well, it's your lucky day, you can go free to kill again. Maybe we will get a jury that actually looks at the facts next time and isn't afraid that you will kill them like the current jury is." Instead, you go ahead an try the murderer and hope for the best.
Definitely. This will be a sign to the 81 million of us who voted for Biden whether the Republican Party has died and given way to Trumpism, or whether they will stand with democracy.
Imagine the total damage to America both internally and externally if the world sees that a president can incite a deadly insurrection against the American people and have absolutely nothing happen to him. The message those who don't think Trump needs to be brought to justice is that our democracy is not worth protecting and that we are no better than Russia or Iran
It is going to be almost as bad when the QOP Senators who vote to acquit because they are telling the world and their non-Trump apologist constituents that American democracy is not worth the pain that Trump will visit upon them for voting against him. If they vote to acquit (assuming the evidence is as overwhelming as it seems to be) then they should all be censured and kicked out of office for violating their oath of office.You appear to be concerned about what the world thinks. Perhaps you should consider what many Americans are thinking. It is clear some are willing to commit insurrection against the Government.
" The message those who don't think Trump needs to be brought to justice is that our democracy is not worth protecting and that we are no better than Russia or Iran"
Bring a president to justice due to not wanting to hear his words? Curious, that to me sounds just like something that would occur in Russia or Iran. Last I knew we had freedom of speech. Guess all better be very careful what we say.Of course I care about what the world thinks, don't you? What they think and do have a great impact on our lives.
"Bring a president to justice due to not wanting to hear his words? " - What does that mean??
I want to bring Trump to justice for inciting an insurrection that led to death, dismemberment, and maiming, among other things.
BUT FOR TRUMP, none of that would have happened. Why is that so hard to understand?If it were not for America's being discussed with the Government this would not have happened. So, many are just not willing to see America go down the wrong path. Right or wrong that's what we are left with. Funny you don't understand that. It would appear some did not want Trump and bellyached for 4 years. Now they seem to think they can impress their will on those that really appreciated what Trump was accomplishing, Almost thinking, all will be fine now... That's a very unrealistic view. The divide has become deeper and is here to stay. For me, I have no will to mend the country, I think it's time to really stand up and stop all of the left BS.
Americans were fed a lie that sought to undermine the idea of our elections being free and fair. It was taken directly from an authoritarian regime playbook. It's sad that so many Americans lack the cognitive ability to see those lies for what they were, or to note that those same lies were debunked just four years earlier after the 2016 election by Trump's own government.
The wrong path? As if the path that led to storming the Capitol, seeking to assassinate your own Vice President, and attempting a coup of an election that did not go your candidate's way is the right path.
You're right on one thing, there's no point trying to mend fences with people that cannot understand the simplest of BS that they are being fed that convinces them to betray the country they live in. Those people are traitors.You're right - Americans have been fed a lot of lies, and you're right that it is sad that they seem incapable of understanding that they are lies. Lies like:
Millions of illegal aliens in the country are good for us.
The rich are an unending source of income, money that belongs to the country, not the owner.
That it is a good thing to be dependent on other countries for our energy.
That it is good for us to regulate business to the point they can't make a profit or leave for greener pastures.
That a disarmed population is a good thing.
That government is the be all, end all of all solutions.
That we as people are but children, incapable of making reasonable decisions.
It's a long, long list. I would wear out my keyboard trying to type all the lies and BS the left is promoting.Solid attempt at listing a bunch of opinions that are easily debatable, or just outright mischaracterizations like energy dependence (changing from fossil fuels to green energy is not an attempt to become dependent on other countries for energy), businesses not being profitable under democratic policies, or that citizens haven't retained their ability to own guns under democrats.
The insurrection by people supporting the losing candidate in the last election is a fact. Claiming election fraud in 2016 that caused Trump to lose the popular vote was confirmed as a lie. Insurrectionists were videoed searching for Pence and heard wanting to do him physical harm.If you think Biden's plans for the coal and oil industry aren't going to produce dependence within the next 5 years on imports you really do have closed eyes.
If you think the ultimate goal is not to disarm Americans, you again have your eyes closed.
If you think you can start a new business under today's laws you need to open your eyes, for it is difficult beyond belief. And a great deal of the blame for that goes to government regulations that small business cannot pay for.
"The insurrection by people supporting the losing candidate in the last election is a fact."
Probably true, although badly exaggerated - while there were probably people in that riot willing to kill they were a very tiny minority. What is NOT true is that Trump incited it or encouraged it; that is pure opinion, and that only by way of consciously spinning, twisting and changing his words to what they were not intended to be."If you think Biden's plans for the coal and oil industry aren't going to produce dependence within the next 5 years on imports you really do have closed eyes." - AND WHY would it? Oh yeah, you think alternative energy is fake news.
"If you think the ultimate goal is not to disarm Americans, you again have your eyes closed." - NO, your paranoia makes you blind.
"If you think you can start a new business under today's laws (you mean the deregulated economy that Trump created?) you need to open your eyes, for it is difficult beyond belief. " - I started one under those regulations you hate. Been at it for 20 years now, doing nicely keeping a couple hundred people earning incomes. I know many, many others who have as well and are wildly successful. (BTW, I am still trying to find those regulations my company can't pay for, still no luck)
What is VERY true, Trump incited the insurrection, which is why he needs to be convicted.I think Dan's crystal ball has some defects. His claims sound like wild paranoia not based in any historical realities.
Gun sales set records during Obama's term and fell off under Trump. The U.S. got more energy domestically than it imported in Obama's final year in office and was expected to be a net exporter by 2019 due to policies created by Obama.
It's not an opinion to say he incited it when many of those who entered the Capitol did so based on Trump's speech as I've noted by providing their quotes in other threads. He fed his followers the lie that the election was stolen, told them to march down to the Capitol that day and told them to fight. He organized the rally that brought those to the Capitol on January 6, beginning with tweets on December 19, claiming it was going to be 'wild.'
https://abcnews.go.com/US/president-tru … d=75757601I also see Wilderness didn't provide proof yet for his false statements or regurgitation of right-wing talking points.
This is really scary and probably has put the Capitol on even higher alert against attacks by Trump's army
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/09/us/calif … index.html
Well, given that so many people voted for Trump, this certainly is a truism "That we as people are but children, incapable of making reasonable decisions."
"Millions of illegal aliens in the country are good for us." - Prove it isn't - look at all of the demand it creates, all of the jobs created from that demand - hmmm
"The rich are an unending source of income, money that belongs to the country, not the owner." - Who says that except right-wing talking points?
"That it is a good thing to be dependent on other countries for our energy." - Another right-wing talking point that no one actually says.
Here is a third false right-wing talking point "That it is good for us to regulate business to the point they can't make a profit or leave for greener pastures." - which isn't even close to true
"That a disarmed population is a good thing." - While I don't personally believe in taking away guns, there are an awfully lot of people alive in Europe because they ban guns.
Except for a few on the far Left, nobody believes this right-wing talking either "That government is the be all, end all of all solutions."
Not sure I understand what you mean by "If it were not for America's being discussed with the Government this would not have happened. "
"It would appear some did not want Trump and bellyached for 4 years. " - Which becomes "It would appear some did not want Obama and promised to make him a one-term president and bellyached for 12 years."
Why does it mean nothing to you that Trump incited the insurrection? It is beyond me. Again - But for Trump, but for his lies, but for his distortions, but for his call to his militia to assemble at D,C. (which they did), but for his angry rhetoric, but for him sending his minions to the capitol - there would not have been an insurrection. There is no getting around that logic.
If he had not spent three months lying about a lost election - no insurrection.
If he had not called for his troops to show up in D.C. (and if they hadn't listened to him) - no insurrection
If he had not riled them up on Jan 6 - no insurrection
If he had not sent them to the Capitol on Jan 6 - no insurrection
If his army had not listened to or believed his lies and exhortations then - no insurrection.
Criminal incitement refers to conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection.
So, what do the Ds have to prove?
First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant (Trump) intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard.
Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action.
Third, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence.
The second and third elements are easy-peasy. It is the first - intent - that is hard in this case. That said, prove it all of the time with white collar crimes. Almost all of those crimes require the proof of intent by the perpetrator.
Now this will be the surprise - for impeachment, there is no need to prove "intent", none at all. What they have to prove is whether or not Trump's words violated his oath of office and his responsibility to protect this nation. Failing to do so in the manner that Trump did is known as a High Crime, not a Misdemeanor, but a High Crime. THAT is what he is being impeached for - he obviously caused an insurrection. He spent three months laying the groundwork for it.
When they criminally prosecute Trump for what happened on Jan 6, only THEN will Trump's "Intent" come into play.Unfortunately, the "logic" of Trump's call for insurrection lies 100% in twisting his words into what they are not. As such there is no "logic" involved, only an opinion based on dislike of Trump and a willingness to spin his words.
But you ARE correct that no intent need be proven...outside of the intent of Democrats to limit the ability of the people to elect who they want. This they have already done, and have said so; the next step is to convince 17 Republicans to follow them in their own "insurrection" and disregard for the democratic process we use."outside of the intent of Democrats to limit the ability of the people to elect who they want. " - So, once again you think the Constitution is worthless since it provides for the Senate to stop an impeached official from holding office again.
I am starting to think the only words in the Constitution you agree with is "We the People". Everything after that is so much garbage.
And he yells to an already agitated crowd (one he spent months agitating) FIGHT LIKE HELL IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR COUNTRY (said at least 20 different ways that day) and MARCH TO THE CAPITOL (where he lied that "I will be with you") and various versions of TAKE BACK YOUR COUNTRY
No, those aren't inciting words at all Wilderness - even though dozens of insurrectionists going to trial are using exactly that defense. They are say "We simply followed Trump's orders" or sentiments to that effect.
Nope, no "logic" at all. It would probably help if you looked up the definition.MY ESOTERIC WROTE "No, those aren't inciting words at all Wilderness" - NO they are not if put into proper context they are not words that would incite --- They are words of a president giving a farewell, and hope, as well as support to those that supported him. You need to read his words, word for word, not just select a few out of context.
"And he yells to an already agitated crowd (one he spent months agitating) FIGHT LIKE HELL IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR COUNTRY (said at least 20 different ways that day) and MARCH TO THE CAPITOL (where he lied that "I will be with you") and various versions of TAKE BACK YOUR COUNTRY"
No, it is unfair to change words, to select terminology that suits your agenda -- "various versions "
16:25
" Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer, and we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. We’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our constitution. Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down anyone you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
You left a lot of his words out. Is that actually fair or appropriate? Does context matter or do only words you want to read matter?
"Donald Trump: (18:16)
We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for the integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period. We’ve set it on a much straighter course, a much … I thought four more years. I thought it would be easy. We created-"
NOW - let's consider Trump's closing words as he said good-bye to his supporters for the last time as their President. Because his entire closing words provide powerfully supportive words... words of thanks, words of hope, words of support. Not just "fight like hell! The words you chose to grab onto. In my view, this shows a real lack of intelligence on your part. And it surprises me because I do believe you to be an intelligent person.
My God read the freaking speech! Context matters.
"Donald Trump: (01:10:52)
We did a great job on the wall. Remember the wall? They said it could never be done. One of the largest infrastructure projects we’ve ever had in this country and it’s had a tremendous impact and we got rid of catch and release, we got rid of all of the stuff that we had to live with. But now the caravans, they think Biden’s getting in, the caravans are forming again. They want to come in again and rip off our country. Can’t let it happen. As this enormous crowd shows, we have truth and justice on our side. We have a deep and enduring love for America in our hearts. We love our country. We have overwhelming pride in this great country, and we have it deep in our souls. Together we are determined to defend and preserve the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Donald Trump: (01:11:44)
Our brightest days are before us, our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were. And again, most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, “I want to thank you very much,” and they go off to some other life, but I said, “Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
Donald Trump: (01:12:21)
Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country and I say this, despite all that’s happened, the best is yet to come.
Donald Trump: (01:12:43)
So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
Donald Trump: (01:13:19)
So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you".
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/do … -january-6"They are words of a president giving a farewell, and hope," - I am sorry Sharlee, but I can only shake my head in that naiveté..
I hope you are listening to the impeachment trial. Although I doubt it, it should change your mind.
On a slightly different topic - wasn't it great to read that the GA Fulton County DA has opened a criminal investigation on Trump for trying to illegally influence an election.I am currently watching the hearing, I also listened yesterday. I am saddened and embarrass for America. We literally have a political party that has impeached a president for words that they have bent out of context, with the help of the media. They have inflamed both Democrats and Republicans as they intended to. This country has at present a society that is unable to listen to the truth, to listen and believe what we are told to believe. Without questioning or even considering maybe, maybe we are being sold a bill of goods.
I would have expected GA out of sheer necessity must do an investigation. Please; let me remind you, Trump, by no means was mentioned in the now released letter that the new media have been reporting on and linking Trump's name to. I did note most did cover their asses by stating they obtain their info from persons that read the letter, and claimed Trump was mentioned. Since the letter was released. Trump or mention of the former president was not present in the document.
But read in what you please... It would seem you do this frequently. It does seem unfair for you to state --"GA Fulton County DA has opened a criminal investigation on Trump for trying to illegally influence an election."
Here is the letter --- It appears the DA is going to be looking at any and all irregularities that may have prevailed during the last election. At this point, we know nothing to where this will lead.
https://beta.documentcloud.org/document … da-lettersI am embarrassed for America, too, but for completely different reasons. To think people ever considered that disgusting "man" to be fit to hold the office of President, and to think people hung on every word of that lying demagogue, and to think they then killed and injured people because they believed him.
It's beyond embarrassing. It's shameful and criminal and utterly pathetic.And I care? Your views are known before you add them. Guess we know where one another stands. BYE
The MAGA Militia also gouged the eye out of one officer and cut three fingers off another.
It is amazing how close former VP Pence (and his family) came to getting hung by them - what did they say? 58 steps away?
Sen Romney almost got caught and maybe killed since he was just a few steps away from the Trump mob before Officer Goodman saved his butt by turning him around and leading him to safety.
I wrote my senators, Rubio and Scott, and reminded them that in two years for Rubio and Scott in four years that if they don't vote to convict Trump that what we saw today will be all over the airways for months on end before their election. Good luck winning it.Another embarrassment is that Trump is proving once again he is mentally ill , in this case sociopathy/psychopathy. He shows absolutely no remorse over what he has done.
Yes, you and I have known it from the beginning. Death by Trump was entirely predictable. It's truly horrifying how many people still think the election was stolen, a lie invented by Trump and hammered into their poor, lost souls day in and day out. Some of them committed murder and mayhem for a mentally ill, sociopathic,
lying demagogue. For a lie.
I'm so sick of them. I'm going to have to stay away from here. Seeing their diseased and manipulated souls is making me nauseous.I need to stick around to see which one of them gets convinced to commit crimes on Trump's behalf. I've created a board with odds, and there's one person here who is even money at this point, and a bunch of 6-to-5'ers.
You had a Michigan (I think) legislator that claimed the videos the impeachment managers are showing are FAKE. It is amazing how crazy many Trump acolytes are.
I was just talking about the people that post here in this forum.
I wonder if they notice that the insurrectionists' lives are ruined while their idol sits in a mansion and pisses in golden toilets?
Just a side note about another conservative lie. Instagram just banned Robert F. Kenney Jr., a lifelong liberal, for his anti-vax lies. So they ARE going after ANYONE who violate their rules. It is (just like with the IRS) conservatives violate them more frequently.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/10/tech/rob … index.html
It just occurred to me that one of the claims I made in 2015, and got laughed at by the right-wing, is that Trump was then and still is a Clear and Present Danger to American democracy.
He certainly made me prescient, didn't he?Yep. About 40% of the population fell under his spell and another 8-10% tolerated him because they liked his policies. Those of us who saw him as dangerous and mentally ill from the beginning are, sadly, being proven right. You can't say we didn't sound the alarm.
I guess you are right, it could be Sen Graham they are going after. But that said, it must be one or the other as those are the only two people (Graham and Trump) who actually tried to get the GA SOS to change the election results.
Certainly no Democrat tried to interfere and I haven't seen one report of anybody else calling the SOS to "find votes".
It always astounds me when otherwise rational, reasonable people cannot distinguish between an opinion and a fact, at least if it is their opinion. Yet here it is again: an apparently complete inability to tell the difference, even after intentionally diverting to irrelevant events and changing what was actually said.
Yeah, kind of like that list of far right-wing opinions you posted and tried to pawn off as facts a few days ago. The hypocrisy of you criticizing any other person on this topic is very comical.
Unless you believe I have a crystal ball predicting the future with 100% accuracy you have to believe that predictions are always opinions. Like becoming dependent on foreign oil agail.
On the other hand, more than a few liberals have made it crystal clear that disarming the American public is their goal. No prediction necessary; just old fashioned ears that are open.Name more than a few Democrats said that. Bet you can't (since there aren't many at all). If you can't, then you must admit you are making that up.
If I can name ONE, it is not made up. And, just as you pointed out, there are way more than one. Couple that with a decades long effort to remove the ability to own weapons and it's pretty clear.
Certain weapons. You are so disingenuous that you try and portray Democrats as wanting an elimination of the Second Amendment entirely.
If can't back up what you say, it is, by definition, made up.
Here is another thing you just made up "And, just as you pointed out, there are way more than one. " - See, everybody knows, I didn't point that out - you falsely did.
And a third lie - "Couple that with a decades long effort to remove the ability to own weapons and it's pretty clear." - that hasn't happened either and because you know it, it is a lie.
I think, to use Valeant's term, your middle name is "disingenuous"."Name more than a few Democrats said that. Bet you can't (since there aren't many at all)."
Apologies - I took the bolded section to mean more than one. At a minimum, that's double what was needed to prove my point. What DID you mean by that area? Zero? One?Since you didn't qualify your original statement down to just one person saying that, then the only reasonable interpretation is you are talking about the whole group (of Democrats in this case) want to disarm America.
So are you now changing your statement to something like "at least one Democrat" wants to disarm America? If so, I can agree with that. But you are clearly wrong that "all", "most", "the majority", etc of Democrats want to disarm America - which is what your original statement implies.
It is very clear the Republican party is very split. This trial will work for the two sides to dig in.
I am pointing out that our Government is more split than citizens. It would seem from the start there legally is no case, just as in the first impeachment. I am not agreeing with the concept of having a trial, just the reality. If the trial is unconstitutional, why progress with it? It would appear it is, although it depends on which constitutional expert you believe. If he is convicted, this will go to the Supreme Court. In my opinion, this is very politically fueled.
Which constitutional expert? For every 1 (and I think there were only 2 who spoke out) that said it is unconstitutional, you have 100 that say it is. I will go with common sense and the vast, vast majority (and now two separate Senate votes) that says it is.
What path do you see it making it to the Supreme Court if Trump is convicted? The Constitution says the Senate has the sole power.
I would agree that the gov't is more split given the 50-50 Senate and the almost evenly split House and that America is split 60 anti-Trump and 40 pro-Trump.'• The impeachment power only applies to current officeholders. In this camp is Cass Sunstein, a professor at Harvard Law School and author of Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide, NBC News reports. Others holding this view are Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz and J. Michael Luttig, a former judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia."
If Trump losses he has the legal right to present his case to the Supreme Court on a constitutional basis. Which would be the best thing in this case. Ones and for all the matter of can be ruled on. Is it unconstitutional to have an impeachment trial after a president leaves office? The constitutionalists are split. Although I do feel Alan Dershowitz is very much the last word when it comes to the constitution.
Well, now we have it - 44 QOP senators voted to sell out America and tell all future presidents they are free to do what ever criminal thing they want without fear of punishment.
What is interesting is that McConnell voted that holding the trial was unconstitutional EVEN THOUGH he was the one who made sure the trial would happen after Trump left office. The man is like Trump, no morals, no ethics, no conscience, no guts.Does anyone hear think Trump will be President on March 4?
Independent of 43 Senators violating their oath of office and effective siding with the insurrectionists by not protecting America from Trump inciting another riot, others are now trying to hold him accountable.
Rep Bennie Thompson (MS) has brought what will probably be the first of hundreds of civil federal lawsuits against, in this case, Trump, Giuliani, and their militia the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for inciting the Jan 6 insurrection.
If they've got Cheney and McConnell, that likely means Thune and Cornyn will be aboard as well. That opens things up significantly if the leaders in the Senate are going to go against Trump's base.
They should have done this during the first impeachment, but McConnell, facing re-election, probably didn't want to battle Trump at that point.Last week, after Trump was banned from social media, election misinformation posts decreased by 73%. Just goes to show how much disinformation originated with him.
WOW, good to hear, but irreversible damage has been done.
I just saw where cybersecurity just said the proud boys should be treated like ISIS on-line (as should the rest of those who Trump looked on as friends)
While Trump should handle losing gracefully, it seems that attacks against him are personal. It is like the other side is out for blood (with being banned from social media, the impeachment, his businesses being attacked, etc.).
I think instead the other side is opposed to the violent overthrow of a legal government.
And why shouldn't it be personal, Mark? He led an insurrection against the United States of America, for goodness sake. How can I say that?
1. Because absent Trump and his Big Lie about losing the election there would have not been an attempted coup.
2. If Trump had not called his militia to assemble at the Capitol and to "take back America", there would not have been an attempted coup and a dead capitol policeman.
He brought all of this on himself and has only himself to blame."And why shouldn't it be personal, Mark? He led an insurrection against the United States of America, for goodness sake. How can I say that"
This has not been proved in any respect.Of course Trump led it. He:
- Set up a rally on certification day.
- Urged his cult followers to attend.
- Urged them to march on Capitol Hill.
- Incited them with inflammatory rhetoric.
- Refused to deploy the National Guard.
- Refused to condemn the riot until a week later, only after legal threats.Yes, a rally was planned for Jan 6th
The President urged supporters to attend
He did say walk peacefully to the Capitol
He spoke his opinion
A week before the rally he met with Miller and gave hin the
full authority to make the decision on deploying the Guard.
"While Trump was less involved in giving orders Wednesday, he gave Miller the green light earlier in the week.
"The acting secretary and the president have spoken multiple times this week about the request for National Guard personnel in D.C.," said Kash Patel, Miller's chief of staff. "During these conversations, the president conveyed to the acting secretary that he should take any necessary steps to support civilian law enforcement requests in securing the Capitol and federal buildings." https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did … ol-1560186
He never refused to condemn the riot. He came out with a statement on the day it happened, and two more videos the day after. These can be found in full on youtube.All false or misleading. It was Pence who gave the order. WIDELY REPORTED. Your link has nothing to do with the order.
His statement that day did not condemn the riot. He simply said -- after tremendous public pressure -- to stop the violence because his people were assaulting police officers.
But your peaceful President did say to the rioters, "We love you".My link actually proves president Trump met with Miller's chief of staff.
"While Trump was less involved in giving orders Wednesday, he gave Miller the green light earlier in the week. During these conversations, the president conveyed to the acting secretary that he should take any necessary steps to support civilian law enforcement requests in securing the Capitol and federal buildings. A face, A name, A fact...The fact that the two had a meeting doesn't mean diddly.
It is a fact that Pence -- not Miller -- authorized the deployment because Trump would not.It was Pence that spoke with Miller and they made the decision to send in the troops. Miller had the authority. Did he drop the ball, and not want to make the decision, and decided to call Pence. Who knows. Miller was told by Trump a week earlier Quote from Kash Patel, Newsweek --- " he should take any necessary steps to support civilian law enforcement requests in securing the Capitol and federal buildings. "
An "acting" defense secretary is not a higher authority than the Vice President of the United States.
I never implied a VP is higher than the President.
Like I said not sure why Miller called Pence, he was told by the president a week prior to the rally to handle or take necessary steps " he should take any necessary steps to "support civilian law enforcement requests in securing the Capitol and federal buildings. "
This could be no more clear. Miller dropped the ball, he did not apparently have the stuffing to do what he was told to do. Pence need have never been called.
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/nationa … ill-riots/My point has eluted you. The president gave his order a week before the rally. Very simply the VP did not need to be called and actually was not until minutes after Miller made the decision to send in the troops.
"Shortly after activating the additional Guardsmen, Miller spoke with congressional leaders and Vice President Mike Pence about the decision, Hoffman said. Earlier in the week, Miller had received guidance directly from Trump that he should take any necessary steps to support law enforcement, Hoffman added."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/0 … ton-455822" Very simply the VP did not need" - Yet he was called (and not Trump). Why did Miller find it necessary to call the VP? (maybe because Trump was too busy watching TV to answer his phone?)
You miss the point that Miller HAD to call the VP.YouMiller was given instruction by the president of the United States. GHe did not need to call anyone. He dropped the ball. We will never know why he did not deploy the troops with better speed, and why he thought he should call Trump. I would think Miller will be investigated as to why he did not do his job.
Your link "proves" no such thing, if fact it proves the opposite. Your whole case rests on whether Patel, a Trump loyalist, is telling the truth. Since the whole suite of Trump loyalists have been proven to lie over and over again, I don't take him at his word.
Tell me, why did Trump lie when he tweeted that "I immediately ordered the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders."? Can you answer me that?It rests on a man that has given a statement in regards to what he can varify. Miller has in no respect claimed Patel's account is not true. We have a human with a face, and name-giving his account. In my book, this far outweighs a story by an unnamed source.
Another source to back up Patel --- "Shortly after activating the additional Guardsmen, Miller spoke with congressional leaders and Vice President Mike Pence about the decision, Hoffman said. Earlier in the week, Miller had received guidance directly from Trump that he should take any necessary steps to support law enforcement, Hoffman added." https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/0 … ton-455822
Could you provide the tweet where Trump stated ---"I immediately ordered the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders"?Miller has not claimed it is true, has he? Most "unnamed" sources (who fear retribution from Trump) haven't been proven to be liars, have they while your "named" source is a known liar. I'll take the unnamed, but reliable source.
You added another source who used the words from an already discredited Patal. In any case, assuming Trump actually told Miller that directly, then apparently Miller disobeyed orders because they were caught flat-footed.
That was what he said in a twitter video. Why would he lie about that??? Why do you believe him????
TRUMP: “I immediately deployed the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders.” — video released Thursday night.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor … ard-in-dc/I believe him because he put it out there and claimed it. So far Miller has not stepped up to call Pata's account untrue. He is laying low. If untrue I would guess he would speak up. At this point, it appears he did not follow the Presidents orders.
Yes, he did say the word "peacefully". But it was hidden among thousands of other words designed to inflame the emotions of his cult.
This on top of two months of other highly inflammatory language urging his supporters to "take back America" and "stop the Democrats from stealing the election." They heard him and they tried, killing a cop along the way.
"“Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.” - Trump says to an angry mob he assembled and sent to the Capitol
While Trump quietly spoke the word "peacefully" once or twice, he loudly spoke the word "fight" dozens of times occasionally emphasizing it by punching like a boxer or "fight like hell". This with the backdrop of previous claims by Trump that his "supporters might one day get violent". (I remember hearing that one)
If you were riled up in that crowd, Sharlee, how would you interpret these words? "“We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” (please don't say he was joking)
or "“We want to go back, and we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.”
or “Nobody knows what the hell is going on. There’s never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.” and the crowd chanted Fight for Trump and then took off to storm the Capitol. (Some took off earlier, the police have found, to collect the weapons and implements they were going to use to break into the Capital.
Here is some of the items rioters brought to the so-called "peaceful protest" you say Trump wanted - https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/01/1 … itol-riot/
"Under battle flags bearing Donald Trump’s name, the Capitol’s attackers pinned a bloodied police officer in a doorway, his twisted face and screams captured on video. They mortally wounded another officer with a blunt weapon and body-slammed a third over a railing into the crowd.
“Hang Mike Pence!” the insurrectionists chanted as they pressed inside, beating police with pipes. " from https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-p … s-turn-up/
Reasonable people understand that Trump caused all of this. No Trump, no coup. Unreasonable people think Trump did the right thing.
No, I don't think I missed the point. The point ap[pears to be Miller did not want the responsibility to call in the troops, what he was told to do... He fell back on calling the VP. I think Miller needs to be questioned on why he did not do what he was told and asked why he thought he needed to call the VP. We do know he did not call,
"You miss the point that Miller HAD to call the VP."
He did not have to call anyone. He had hos orders from Trump,
this is a fact. He was given the authority to make the decision. He did not want to and tried to get Pence involved IMO.
So far this is what we know from the statements I provided you within my previous posts
Believe whatever you please, I am at this point sticking to what facts I have uncovered both sources have names and gave statements Trump gave Miller the authority to make the call...Tell me, what were the Exact words Trump supposedly told Miller? The best we have is "guidance", according to you, "that he should take any necessary steps to support law enforcement," That is pretty damn specific, don't you think? - NOT.
You are basing your whole defense of a man who caused an insurrection on an alleged statement, a vague one at that, well before the time he sent his militia to the Capitol. He then made himself unavailable during a time of crisis.Given the FBI's warnings and the almost total lack of preparedness, I have to wonder how much Trump and his loyalists had to do with being unprepared.
The Washington Post timeline is a good start at finding the culprits but the 9/11-style investigation, which hopefully lead to a special counsel, should root out all of the bad actors in the government that let this happen - including congressmen and women who assisted the seditioners.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/19/politics … ndex.html.I would guess we will never know the motive of who did what on that given day. I can add, Trump, as a rule, is for law and order, and all summer offered troops to all states that were having problems with nightly riots.
In my view, I do not in any respect feel Trump promoted physical violence, I think the attack was planned by groups long before they set foot in Washington. And it is very well reported that the FBI knew about the threat, and warned all the appropriate agencies. It is obvious the threat was ignored, and many did not do what was needed to control a huge mad crowd.
.How can you say this and not laugh out loud "I can add, Trump, as a rule, is for law and order,"??
The man has broken so many laws, in and out of office, and pushed the boundaries of so many others it is beyond belief. Let me put it this way, he believes in law and order much like a mob boss does.
Yes, the threat was ignored - but by whom and why? Who told them to ignore it - given they have never ignored such a threat before. Why, in this one instance when Trump sent his militia to the Capitol did years of training and protocol break down?
That is what the investigation will determine and I bet you it will lead to Trump's front door.Has he been charged with any crimes now or in the past? I have no idea if the threat was ignored or just another mess that was poorly handled. As I have said previously we need an investigation into this matter. If Trump is or were a mob boss, I would think Mueller would have found something to charge him with, not just speculative inuendos.
Once again, and again - Mueller was not allowed to charge Trump with anything. Why do you keep bring up a false claim?
What Mueller did do, however, is lay out all of the evidence needed to try him for obstruction of justice once he slinks off tomorrow morning. Hopefully the new AG will waste no time in releasing the rest of the Mueller report and indicting an unsitting president so that America can begin the process of finding justice and start healing from the terrible wound this, whatever Trump is, inflicted on our Nation.You have some logical thoughts, But.... 1. In the present, he couldn't be charged with crimes as long as he was president. That was stated over and over. 2. In the past, he paid off his accusers, that has been brought to light. Bankruptcies are not crimes, that is a historical fact, regardless of the intent of the "ruptee". The rich can pay to hide their crimes. Remember, it was the IRS who brought down Al Capone. When all else fails, call in the IRS.
https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2017/ … asion.htmlWhile he can't be charged with this, he should be - he had NO vaccination plan. None, Nada. I wonder how many people have died because of that incompetency?? Overall, I think Trump is responsible for 300,000 of the 400,000 dead Americans and 90% of the next 100,000 that are supposed to die between now and Feb 13th.
Can you imagine, for a pandemic that he lied to America that it would go away "soon", another 100,000 Americans will die in the next 23 days. And still I hear so many of his zombies still think Covid is hoax or agree with his lie that the deaths are overstated.
America will suffer the pain of this twice impeached, single-term, mentally ill disgraced demagogue for decades to come. And yet 70,000,000 so-called Americans would want to do it again.Just living in the now, today world. It is well known he could not be charged with a crime while president. I was pointing out as of yet in his life he has not to this day been charged with a crime. He very well might be. I don't think it fair or kind to just say matter of fact that he will be charged with a crime. I certainly would hate to live in a world one can be slandered with crimes that they have not or may never be charged with. Time to stop, and wonder what it would be like if we were treated in that
fashion.
In regard to the IRS, I trust if he has committed any tax crimes they will charge him or would have charged him before he became the president. He has never been charged with a tax crime or actually any crime, and he is 70 some years on this earth. But, whatever. The fact doesn't seem to matter much anymore. Would it not just be better to see if he is charged with crimes before slandering him. What if he has not committed any crimes? Have some been unfair in slandering him?Sharlee, do you consider defamation a crime? Do you consider fraud a crime?
No, I don't consider defamation of one character a crime. However, I do feel it is socially unexcepted and feel it fair if defamed, to initiate a civil lawsuit and seek damages against the perpetrator.
I consider fraud a crime and I am aware crimes of fraud are covered by both criminal and civil laws.
I feel one must distinguish between a criminal charge and a civil charge. I am very aware of the different criminal cases that the State Of New York is looking at in regard to Trump. I am also aware Trump has had multiple civil suits throughout his life. Which it appears he paid his way out of. I am aware of no criminal charges ever being brought against the man as of yet. I see where you are headed, in my comment, I neglected to be more specific. I should have been more precise in my terminology. My train of thought was that Trump as of yet has not been charged with a criminal charge.And why do you separate one crime from another?
Crime: 1 : an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government especially : a gross violation of law. 2 : a grave offense especially against morality.
And then we have this about Trump University "In 2005, the New York State Department of Education sent Trump, Sexton, and Trump University a letter saying that they were violating state law by using the word "university" when in fact Trump University was not actually chartered as one and did not have the required license to offer live instruction or training."
Please don't try to say that it wasn't Trump that didn't commit that crime but the Trump University. There is no light between Trump and his university.
Now, I are you going to try to argue that violating a state law is not a crime? And this doesn't even get into the fraud they committed in basically stealing students money.I will make you a deal you don't bring up Trump, I won't. It is just time to move on. Why not open a thread about some of the things Biden is doing at this point. He is making some pretty big changes, and it would be interesting to critique a few. Much of what he is proposing will provide some good conversation.
All everyone can talk about is Trump. Come on people he is gone. And the left thinks the right needs deprogramming... Go figure.
The ship has sailed, Trump is off playing golf, he is eating whoppers, he is sunbathing..."I will make you a deal you don't bring up Trump, I won't. It is just time to move on. Why not open a thread about some of the things Biden is doing at this point."
Amen. It probably won't happen, but amen to the thought.
GAAnd the Left pundits are considering deprogramming Trump supporters. I wondered what would prevail after the glow of Trump-bashing started to wear off. TDS is more prevalent today than ever. The frenzy of withdrawal has begun. So tired of this kind of irrational BS.
MY ESOTERIC -"It would appear that Sharlee, after the person who murdered her husband, got off on a technicality would rather forget about it and say "It is just time to move on. " and seek no further justice."
Come on --- How much longer do we placate these kinds of comments?I am sorry, Sharlee, I just took your comment about moving on with Trump and made a theoretical analogy and then drew the conclusion that you would "move on" from that as well. Am I wrong?
Yep, Trump abused his power, abused the office of the presidency, and abused this natuon. We must hold him accountable before we can move on. The Big Lie of election fraud and his incitement of angry followers to storm the Capitol cannot be simply swept under the rug with no consequence to the perpetrator. If we allow that, we deserve whatever wannabe dictator surfaces next and says "Now, it's my turn."
You have every right to disagree with my sentiment, and to make analogies. I did not feel this particular analogy fit well in our conversation. It did seem extreme. However, I have come to the opinion over time, you are passionate about your beliefs, it's part of your individual character. So, I have adapted to your style of communicating. Hopefully, you will adapt to mine.
Our conversation was going right along, and it veered a bit off subject, which I excepted, and switched gears. And at that point due to the subject taking a turn about Fylnn and Bannon needing to be further investigated for the Jan 6th Capitol attack was when I suggested we move on. I offered an opinion to include ----
"My statement --- "Maybe it's time to just move on. Clean slate with the new administration. To continue to investigating certain citizens that are either under investigation or have been investigated seems unproductive. And will ultimately make Biden's administration marred with "let's get even"... Instead of let's move on and try to pull together"
In a previous conversation with you, I shared that in my view we should just wait and see if Trump is charged with any crimes before discussing them. Again just an opinion. I very much understand that you feel Trump should be punished for several reasons. I noted your comment --- "Well, in my opinion, what Trump did to America is worse than a simple murder, much worse, and America should never forget what he did nor give up seeking justice."
I respect your feelings, and I am well aware many feel just like you. Yes, we disagree "a lot", but I think we are comfortable with communicating with each other, being honest and open. You could stick with those that agree totally with your opinions. That would provide you with
conversations that would be perhaps more satisfying.
So you don't consider defamation to be a crime. According to the legal definition, it can be:
https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-defamation/
All writers (do you consider yourself one?) need to read the U.S. Code laws on defamation. Also each state passes its own laws concerning state crimes and the penalties for conviction of violating them. Did your state not do this?It would appear that Sharlee, after the person who murdered her husband got off on a technicality would rather forget about it and say "It is just time to move on. " and seek no further justice.
Well, in my opinion, what Trump did to America is worse than a simple murder, much worse, and America should never forget what he did nor give up seeking justice.
But, I will take her suggestion and start a new thread about the wonderful things Biden is doing for America."It would appear that Sharlee, after the person who murdered her husband got off on a technicality would rather forget about it and say "It is just time to move on. " and seek no further justice."
Your analogies are always so dramatic, exaggerated. Did Trump kill someone?
Let me reorient you -- I never said let Trump should not be charged with a crime, civil or criminal. I said let's not discuss them unless he is charged. Seems to be futile to constantly live on "what if" this happens. It also seems slanderous to accuse anyone of a crime that they have not been charged with.
Read my first posts on this subject it should help reiterate what I have stated. Not about to repeat me at this point.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4171782
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4171868
You have compared murder to a civil suit that claimes a group was "cheated out of tuition at an online college, possible tax crimes, etc... This kind of thinking eludes me.
your comment --- "MY ESOTERIC -"It would appear that Sharlee, after the person who murdered her husband, got off on a technicality would rather forget about it and say "It is just time to move on. " and seek no further justice.""Your analogies are always so dramatic, exaggerated. Did Trump kill someone? "
Yes he has, in several ways, real and potential.
1. His bungled coronavirus response coupled with his outright lies about it makes him responsible for a few hundred thousand American deaths.
2. His precipatous pull out of Syria led directly to the deaths of hundreds of our Kurdish allies.
3. His draconian border security policies led to the deaths of many non-citizens.
4. He is certainly morally responsible for the insurrection that led to the death of 5 people including a policeman and if he is found to be criminally or civilly culpable (including conviction at impeachment) as well, that makes him an accessory to murder.
And yes, analogies are intended to draw a stark contrast.
As to your false "what if" complaints, while you may choose to, I don't wish to disengage my mind from the realities of the world and make reasonable conclusions (which is not to say they are always right) from my observations.
And NO, I have not compared murder to a civil suit. I have compared murder with an insurrection against the United States of America which led to five or six deaths. Does that elude you?I have provided you with my reasoning to move on from the classic Trump-bashing comments. It's your prerogative to continue to discuss all of what you felt Trump did wrong. I do not intend to live in the past. I will be glad to discuss current events in regard to Trump. Not into water under the bridge or if comes. Hey, take it for what it is.
We could move on to Biden, what has he done in his first few days? I am more than willing to critique his past and present. I will hold off on his future to show fair play.
I do feel it time to move forward with the guy that's in the White House now.
As I have said there are people that post here that share your views. Why not converse with them? We think so differently.I can't stay silent until justice has been served.
Speaking about his client, a would be assassin, his lawyer says ""He did it in support of former President (Donald) Trump,"
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/23/politics … index.htmlI'm with you. I wish we could simply erase all reference to the worst president ever, but until we ensure that he is held accountable for his actions, we cannot.
Well yes, this is current and factual, and a very current problem in my opinion. I like to see the FBI turning these thugs over to the Justice Department, and it well seems the JD is doing their job with charging him. It is good to see they are asking a judge to keep him in jail pending trial. Hopefully, this will work to deter others when they get an idea to break the law. I will keep an eye open to see what the court does with this guy I see he will be in court Monday.
Please understand I was not asking you to be silent. This is an open forum. I was just simply saying I would prefer to talk about current events. I am just burnt out talking about prior and If comes in regards to Trump That's just how I feel. Not in any way judging your rights.
Everyone of these people need to be investigated and indicted if needed:
"Steve Bannon evoked the beaches of Normandy. Michael Flynn drew comparisons to Civil War battlefields and spoke of Americans who died for their country. Roger Stone called it a struggle "between the godly and the godless, between good and evil." Rudy Giuliani called for "trial by combat." Ali Alexander said it would be a "knife fight.""
""All hell is going to break loose tomorrow," Bannon, Trump's former top White House adviser, promised listeners of his podcast -- called "War Room" -- on January 5."
""We are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women," he added, "and we are probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you will never take back our country with weakness.""
"What we have is influential, powerful people influencing the President and pushing out messages that are radicalizing large chunks of the population," said Heidi Beirich, chief strategy officer for the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism"All the men you mentioned needing to be investigated have been investigated.
Maybe it's time to just move on. Clean slate with the new administration. To continue to investigating certain citizens that are either under investigation or have been investigated seems unproductive. And will ultimately make Biden's administration marred with "let's get even"... Instead of let's move on and try to pull together.Not for inciting sedition they haven't.
It amazes me you simply want to "move on" from an attempted violent coup of our nation and pretend it didn't happen or was no big deal.
If someone kidnapped your child and you got him or her back. Would you just "move on" or seek justice?No, Once again I have said multiple times I think the entire matter of the Capitol riot should be investigated. Your analogy is hyperbolic. You entirely missed the context of my comment. Here is our back and forth...
MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
Everyone of these people need to be investigated and indicted if needed:
"Steve Bannon evoked the beaches of Normandy. Michael Flynn drew comparisons to Civil War battlefields and spoke of Americans who died for their country. Roger Stone called it a struggle "between the godly and the godless, between good and evil." Rudy Giuliani called for "trial by combat." Ali Alexander said it would be a "knife fight.""
"All hell is going to break loose tomorrow," Bannon, Trump's former top White House adviser, promised listeners of his podcast -- called "War Room" -- on January 5."
"We are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women," he added, "and we are probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you will never take back our country with weakness."
"What we have is influential, powerful people influencing the President and pushing out messages that are radicalizing large chunks of the population," said Heidi Beirich, chief strategy officer for the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism"
MY RESPONSE Sharlee --- All the men you mentioned needing to be investigated have been investigated.
Maybe it's time to just move on. Clean slate with the new administration. To continue to investigating certain citizens that are either under investigation or have been investigated seems unproductive. And will ultimately make Biden's administration marred with "let's get even"... Instead of let's move on and try to pull together
As you see I was referring to a different investigation entirely.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4171423
Shar clearly wants to thoroughly investigate the Capitol insurrection, just not if it involves the people responsible for inciting it.
Quick question --- Realistically, just how are you going to prove
"Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, or Rudy Giulian contributed to inciting a riot at the Capitol? This seems very unrealistic. Do you realize how hard it would be to provide evidence of intent? When I speak of an investigation in regard to the Capitol riot. I am referring to anyone that physically participated in the violence or proven to have planned the attack.
I just will never become accustomed to or figure out your selective way of thinking. It always seems so unrealistic.
I have nothing more to say on the subject. Don't agree or care for my opinion, I guess that's your problem.I don't need to prove anything, the prosecutors do. They need to take statements such as the one Giuliani made when he told the angry mob, "“If they ran such a clean election, they’d have you come in and look at the paper ballots.(they did) Who hides evidence? .(they didn't) Criminals hide evidence. Not honest people. Over the next 10 days, we get to see the machines that are crooked (they weren't), the ballots that are fraudulent (they weren't), and if we’re wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we’re right, a lot of them will go to jail. Let’s have trial by combat.”" (which he yelled at the mob)
To that the prosecutor's can add all the months of lies Giuliani told to those that Trump called to march on the Capitol. Giuliani and Bannon and Jr. and Trump spent months inciting these people. And guess what they did, they heeded their lies and invaded our Capitol. (but no big deal, move on)I think any case of incitement would be very hard to prove in a court of law. Very easy in the court of the media. Just my opinion
I will agree, it is very hard, but they have to try, there must be justice.
Yeah, let's come into a thread called, 'Impeaching Donald Trump - Again' and ask that people stop talking about Trump, even though his impeachment is something still on the horizon.
This is a public forum, I was simply offering MY ESOTERIC a suggestion... And let him know I am over a conversation I find has been played out. That's my right., get it?
I have no problem having a discussion on current events. I think we have well- discussed the many "previous and pending crime accusations". I find it funny that so many pundits are considering that Trump supporters need deprogramming. Laugh -- Laugh - Laugh
Give it a break, move at the moment Trump has not been charged with any criminal charges. You can hope... But I am not interested in discussing if comes.
Suggestion --- What' you guy up to in his first days in office?Yeah, that's your right. But you have that right to go start those threads elsewhere on this site.
For many, Trump's illegal actions will remain relevant due to his impeachment and the impending New York investigations that had to be delayed due to him holding the Office of the Presidency.
People like MyEsoteric and I will be very interested to see if the incoming Attorney General chooses to file criminal charges for those Obstruction of Justice claims made in the Russia Investigation.
If this does not interest you, why don't you move along and just stop posting in this thread? It's a simple solution. Instead, you need to whine about how we should all want to be like you and start bashing Biden at every turn."If this does not interest you, why don't you move along and just stop posting in this thread? " Let me count the ways... One such thought was being polite to My E... and actually, I have posted a thread on the second impeachment --- current factual news. TDS is not pretty, time to move on, sooner or later we all must. or take the risk of really looking --- well you know.
And Let me point out something you may have not caught --- This thread was on point until page 5. It was then MyE added a twist that led us into a new area of discussion. It was not I that strayed. It was formed that comment on I was simply being courteous to his comments.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4171398You just can't stop, can you?
I doubt MyE finds your posts polite either. An attempt to distract from his topic, likely.
Keep us posted where you got your degree in psychology. Until then, I'll just assume your TDS mention refers to your own diagnosis of Trump Demagogue Syndrome. We have the cure, it's called 81 million votes.Reread my comment I edit it. Not willing to take your obvious bait. So obvious. You differently
can't keep up with the internet "Big Dogs" --- Takes skill...
differently -- (in a way that is not the same as another or as before.)Not a bait, a suggestion. I followed all the posts in the thread, I know what you were trying to do. You're trying to deflect attention away from Trump's crimes to talk about Biden. My suggestion is that you don't need to do that in this thread. There will be plenty to talk about relating to this topic in the upcoming weeks and months.
And since I can spell basic words like 'definitely,' I think I may have a bit more skill than you give me credit for.I was very direct in my comments that I felt it time to move on. MyE was reverting to (https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4171398) conspiracy theories in my view. The people he mentions have not been connected to the Jan 6th riot in any respect. As I offered the actual link to when the subject went off the rails and who took it off the rails. The thread was actually to my surprise going along wonderfully on the subject. You may want to address MyE why he felt he needed to divert the subject to Fylnn, Bannor ---- etc.
I placated, made attempts to be courteous. I speed type on a phone as a rule. So you may need to become accustomed to my errors. In this case, I meant to use the word differently to make my point about you being different than the "Big Dogs".
differently --- in a way that is not the same as another or as before you. You know, IMO you are unlike the internet big dogs when it comes to tossing out bait.
You don't need to speak for MyE. He certainly does well with getting his point out. I like that, I respect that. You asked why I don't move along? As a rule, reply if addressed, that simple. I think MyE does just fine without your help.
Actually, MyE has posted a thread on Biden. Perhaps you should check it out. I certainly did. He put a lot of thought into the thread I would hope some would share their views on Biden's first days.
The Trumpism is strong with this one. Going so far as to try and explain away an obvious mistake as intentional, to make up for the fact that there is a failure to check posts for accuracy before publishing them - all while projecting your own faults onto others. No wonder the defense is so personal.
Should be interesting watching Trump's lawyers attempting to discredit Trump's own supporters.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supporters-w … 09708.htmlI think the entire trial will be interesting legally. I am most interested in hearing the back and forth, especially would like to know if impeaching a president after he has left office. Wondering if it will be deemed constitutional. IT is a perfect case for TV. It will be all about judging words, and yes, right up my alley the context of what was said in full.
I have heard, but could not find any cases to back up the claim, that they have impeached judges after they have left office so as to bar them from ever being able to sit on the bench again.
If, and I stress if since I could not find those cases, that precedent exists, it will confirm the legality of impeaching someone after they have currently left office.
Another angle you could take if you are the prosecution is that since Trump receives government resources such as protection and post-presidential salary, you could argue he is still a government official.I for one am looking forward to watching. I can't find much about the Constitutional implications. I wouldn't think the House feels they have a good leg to stand on in regard to the Constitution.
I should have been more implicit --- I think some may feel as the wording stands in the Constitution it could lessen their chances of winning. I should have perhaps said --- I wouldn't think the House feels they have a good leg to stand on in regard to the wording of the Constitution.
I have done further reading, and at this point, I think it will all depend on the individual Senators to vote their opinion on the wording in the Constitution. Some may feel the word "president " was used for a purpose, and the words past presidents were omitted to assure past presidents could not be impeached.
It also appears if Trump loses, he can take a Constitutional complaint to the Supreme Court on that very wording.
The only precedent I could find:
The principal precedent is the 1876 impeachment of Secretary of
War William Belknap. Belknap resigned over allegations he received kickbacks. The House impeached him after his resignation.
The House approved (without objection) the resolution impeaching Secretary Belknap, establishing the House’s position that it may impeach an official who does not currently hold office. The impeachment then moved to the Senate for trial, where Secretary Belknap asserted through counsel that because he was now a private citizen and no longer an officer of the federal government, the Senate lacked the authority to bring him to trial. The House managers asserted otherwise, arguing that because Belknap was Secretary of War “at the time all the acts charged in said articles of impeachment were done and committed ... the House of Representatives had power to prefer the articles of impeachment, and the Senate have full and the sole power to try the same.”
The Senate heard three days of arguments on the topic after which it determined by a vote of 37 to 29 that Secretary Belknap was “amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before he was impeached.” Following the trial, a majority of Senators voted to convict Belknap, but no article mustered the two thirds majority necessary for conviction. He was ultimately acquitted.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product … B/LSB10565I think this is key, absent a court opinion - "The Senate heard three days of arguments on the topic after which it determined by a vote of 37 to 29 that Secretary Belknap was “amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before he was impeached.
I would think, should it go to the Supreme Court, they would look to this vote as guidance since the Constitution itself is silent.
Which is a very interesting question. Who will deem it constitutional or not? It has never been settled. Most constitutional lawyers says there is no prohibition in the Constitution against at least completing an impeachment after an official leaves office. They also think Trump may have a tough row to hoe in the Supreme Court since the contextualist he nominated, plus Alito and Thomas, will look to see if the Constitution prohibits it. Failing that, they will look to see what the founders said or wrote about it. Failing that, they may do what Scalia did and turn to English law which clearly allowed for impeachment after the fact.
In regards to who will judge if the charge is not constitutional --- Both sides present their case, the Senate will be the deciders via their final vote. It will be up to each Senator to vote their conscience if the charge is constitutional.
I have just taken Alan Dershowitz's opinion thus far. It appears there are questions due to wording in the Constitution in regard to the word "president" can be impeached. It has no mention of a president that has left office. It is also possible if Trump losses he can't present the case to the SC on a Constitutional basis. Whatever the outcome this may set precedent for further impeachments. Hey, we are living through a very historic time. This trial will be very interesting.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/22/95970005 … l-answeredNor does it mention "It has no mention of a president that has not left office." Nor does it say only a "sitting" president, or words to that effect. Once a president, always a president whether they occupy the Oval office or not, I would think.
Yes, I suspect Trump will, if he is convicted of inciting an insurrection, take it to the SC.Yes, we agree on the wording. It will be up to the individual to decipher meaning. Will some take the wording as written or will they assume the word was used to indicate a president present or past.
Yes, Trump's character would indicate he if things don't go his way he will head for the SC.If by "individual" you mean individual Senators, I can't agree. At a minimum, they should do as before (or take the Belknap vote as is) and vote on whether it is constitutional or not. If the majority says it isn't, then it is over - for that is within the Senate's power to do.
If, on the other hand, it passes as Constitutional, then Every Senator must take that as the baseline and not try to use that reasoning to squirm around not voting to impeach because they are afraid what Trump might do to them.
If they vote not to convict, it must be because they truly don't believe the actions of Trump in the months prior to and on the day of the insurrection doesn't amount to incitement."If they vote not to convict, it must be because they truly don't believe the actions of Trump in the months prior to and on the day of the insurrection doesn't amount to incitement."
I think it is more complicated, I think some will consider their true opinion, feeling Trump's words incited an attack on Government. While others will consider only if the impeachment was Constitution. Some will consider both... And you are correct some will worry about what Trump could do to or for their careers.
From the article:
"Chansley called the FBI the day after the insurrection and told agents he traveled “at the request of the president that all ‘patriots’ come to D.C. on January 6, 2021,” authorities wrote in court papers."
Interesting use of the term "patriot."And then there is this from that same article - "At least five supporters facing federal charges have suggested they were taking orders from the then-president when they marched on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6 to challenge the certification of Joe Biden's election win. "
To Incite - "encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behavior)." To incite somebody to do something there must be the "inciter" and the "incitee" (to make up a word). If the incitee doesn't perceive the words of the inciter to be a call to action, then the inciter would only be guilty of inflammatory 1st amendment language.
But, if the incitee acts on that language, then the inciter is probably criminally guilty.
In this case, according the insurrectionist, they were acting on behalf of what they thought Trump was asking them to do. Easy-Peasy.
They will aquit Trump, because it has been proven that the insurrection was planned before Trump gave his speech, and also because if they try to indict him, they would have to do the same with Maxine Waters, Ayanna Presley et al. However, I do find your article well written.
Yes, it was all planned before his speech. That's why they have to go back further in time and try to change the meaning of different words than a political exhortation to "fight!" or "March on the capital and talk to you legislator.". That doesn't cut it any more, so something else must be spun into "incitement".
All? Highly doubtful when you hear the statements of many of his supporters who claim to have answered his call and then stormed the Capitol after his direction. These insurrectionists clearly only got the memo after hearing Trump speak.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zo … -like-hell
https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol … ton-2021-1
And if Trump's legal team chooses to use the 'insurrection was planned weeks before' defense, it should be interesting to ask those people on live television why they planned it. Their answer? To stop a stolen election, something Trump promoted for months on his social media accounts. Still seems like inciting.As you say, I suspect a lot of the evidence will be the insurrectionists own words where they tell you straight out that Trump was their inspiration, that they were doing it at Trump's orders.
They will play the recordings of the traitors saying they came to Washington because Trump told them to.
They will play the video where you can hear the crowd going wild and were ready to attack as Trump urged them on from the podium.
Yes, it was planned - at Trump's strident urging from Oct through Dec and then on Jan 6.Worth the read about how one woman got out from under the Qanon-Trump spell.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/03/tech/qan … index.htmlAnother shift to reality - CNN is first and Fox is third and falling (it is about time)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/media/fo … index.html
Why is what Trump said or did any worse than what Maxine Waters or Ayanna Presley said?? The hypocrisy of the left is astounding.
Did either organize an insurrection? Did they organize an armed group that proceeded to takeover our nation's Capitol as Congress was in the process of certifying an election that did not go their way? Did they spend months spreading a lie that the 2020 election was fraudulent and then tell their followers to go to the Capitol and fight? Did their followers leave that speech and then go looking to assassinate the Vice President of the United States?
It's not even close to Maxine Waters saying people need to 'form a crowd, pushback on them (Trump's cabinet) and TELL them they are not welcome.'
Your false equivalency in trying to support a violent coup of our government is ridiculous.
So, Trump's programming of his base over months, assembling them on January 6, and then telling them to go down to the Capitol at the exact moment Congress is set to certify electoral votes and fight like hell could not have been a cause for the violent insurrection? What you are willing to excuse, in the name of Trumpism, is beyond scary.
As for Georgia, you do have a point. Lindsey Graham could also be among those being investigated for his role in attempting to influence Raffensperger. It will be interesting to see if it's both Trump and him.Hey, I was very diplomatically making an attempt to point out it's not so smart to read into anything one might hear from media. It seems as if some are very "programmed " to add to what they read and hear. Not sure who the DA of Fulton county will net and investigate. Seems she is scared to mention Trump.
Once again (realize it takes a few times to soak in, no problem) I never condoned or supported what went on at the Capitol. I am against impeachment for what I see as political reasons, especially when the Democrats know the outcome. As I have said red meat.Since you oppose this impeachment, is there ANYTHING a president can do in the last month of his term (especially a Republican one) that would meet your bar for impeachment?
From where I sit, you can't do anything worse than what Trump did, even murder.It's not that I object to the impeachment. I object to the non-sensical reason for holding an impeachment when they know the outcome. It stands to accomplish nothing in the end but making the Democrats look like they are impeaching Trump as a political ploy. Intelligent people can see right through this ploy, same as the first impeachment, he will be acquitted... and be on his way. But the Dems once again have tossed out red meat for hungry devotees. Waste of time and money. But that's what Dems do best. LOL
Considering it was the most bipartisan impeachment in history, and even Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy publicly stated Trump had culpability for the Capitol attack, thinking that the GOP was finally ready to hold Trump accountable for his illegality was far from non-sensical.
All may be true. But as I said the Dems know what the outcome will be. Just a cheap political ploy. I am not saying it will not keep the base happy. But, what do you really think the majority of clear thinking Ameican's think of this ploy, we have other big problems. Problem Biden was bragged he was going to work on. I see he is fallen short on getting the vaccine out and thinks we instead need a glove factory. Oh, and to wear a mask while out of doors. WOW ! great suggestions, that should really work to rid us of COVID. Thank God we have some vaccine at this point. My God are we in trouble.
Considering the Majority leader of the GOP Senate was putting blame on Trump at the time of impeachment, the odds that the GOP had finally had enough when Trump incited his supporters to threaten their lives seemed decent. The majority of clear thinking Americans support this ploy as 56% of them want Trump convicted - the other 44% of sycophants think along your lines.
Biden has issued the most amount of Executive Orders to start a presidency - seems he's doing the work. We're less than a month into his term and it's looking like a nearly $2 trillion relief package is going to get done in two months, something it took a Republican-led Senate to get done in nine months. And he's noted that no Covid plan existed before he was inaugurated, something he would have been able to plan for had Trump's people not obstructed the transition. For a self-proclaimed medical expert, you expecting him to solve Covid in three weeks is rather ridiculous.Two months... I wonder how some that need that cash feel about two months. Nine months, that was Nancy's fault completely. Yes, still Trump impeding Joe. How long can I expect to hear that? My oh my liberals always play the blame game. The truth is (and I provide links to Eoc to back this fact) the majority of the people that worked on Operation Warp Speed are still working on Joe's team. Gen. Gustave Perna is still in charge of vaccine distribution. No obstruction, Joe just has no idea the scope of this pandemic. Like I said he is off in all directions --- building a glove factory, etc. thank God he left Trump's team in place because it does appear bugs are being handled.
" the other 44% of sycophants think along your lines."
Sycophants? Who would I be trying to please in this incident, and how do to gain personal advantage by supporting or not supporting the impeachment? Not sure you chose the right word, maybe you were reaching for the word Trumpian?
This would seem to be a much more important poll IMO ---Right Direction or Wrong Track
35% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction
Monday, February 08, 2021
Thirty-five percent (35%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey for the week ending February 4, 2021
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public … rack_feb08
Shocked to see this occur so soon.Love how you claim liberals always play the blame game immediately after you blame Pelosi. The hypocrisy lady strikes yet again.
And sycophant seems appropriate enough. When so many believe Trump's base is a cult, the word fits just fine. And you seemed to believe your opinion was in the majority, the point was to show that it is not.
I'm not even sure what you were trying to claim by citing the ridiculously far-right Rasmussen polling. But if you looked at Realclearpolitics who averages all the polls across the spectrum, you see both right and wrong moving closer to the middle.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll … y-902.htmlI checked out your link. I noted it to be a good site that provided 6 respectable pollsters providing polls on Joe's job performance. It's odd you chose to ignore 5 that have Joe way underwater. Although even the one you chose was poor. His job polls are pretty bad at this point. It will interesting to see how he does going forward.
I regard to the blame game I was responding to your comment --- "ecutive Orders ( executive) to start a presidency - seems he's doing the work. We're less than a month into his term and it's looking like a nearly $2 trillion relief package is going to get done in two months, something it took a Republican-led Senate to get done in nine months."
I was giving an opinion on a specific accusation, and yes did place blame. However, I placed the blame after researching the bill. It was laden with crazy pork. As all were, and most likely this new one will be too.It's comical that you equate the overall tally to the guy who has been in office for three weeks instead of looking at the improvements made in those figures during his three weeks in office to date.
Trump's high for polling was just over 40% for having the country on the right track. Since taking office, Biden has raised that number from 21.4% on his first day where Trump left office to 39.3%, nearly reaching Trump's high points within his first three weeks.Not sure what tally you are speaking of. I was commenting on Biden's Job approval polls. . What tallies?
I was looking at the average of all the polls that says 39.3% of the country thinks we're on the right track. That is up from an average of just under 22% when Trump left office. So Biden has nearly doubled the figure of who thinks the country is on the right track in just three weeks.
And job approval is very different than direction the country is heading in polls that you cited. Even your beloved Rasmussen puts him at 50% in that category as see below.
Job Approval: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll … -7320.html
Direction the Country is Heading: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll … y-902.html
I just heard an interesting point. Where is the outrage from the Blue Lives Matter groups regarding the assault perpetrated by Trump. Could it be only some Blue Lives Matter?
Well, don't you see? The one thing Trump supporters demand is allegiance to their Supreme Leader. To behave otherwise is to be a traitor. The police who were doing their jobs were called traitors by the Trump mob. I just watched video of them chanting "Traitors! Traitors! Traitors!"
In their minds, beating them, tasing them, pepper spraying them, even killing them were all justified. Those cops were traitors for not believing and acting upon Trump's Big Lie.
- PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago
0Trumpers look the other way when their man invents a lie, foments the lie, calls for violence in support of the lie, and gleefully allows his supporters to kill and destroy before he calls them off and tells them he loves them. Some Trumpers characterize holding him accountable for creating an insurrection against their own country as a "nonsensical reason for holding an impeachment."
What would be a sensible reason for holding an impeachment trial? What if the insurrectionists who were hunting down Pence had gotten ahold of him? Trump tweeted that Pence was a "coward" after the Capitol had been breached and while his violent followers were hunting down Pence. Video evidence shows these insurrectuinists reading Trump's tweets in real time and shouting them out to the angry mob.
Think about that.
A moral, responsible, sane president would be urging his followers to stand down and leave the Capitol. Trump egged them on for hours. Trump waited until people were killed before he finally told them to stop, and then he told his killer followers he loves them.
In whose world is this not impeachable behavior?
Are you defenders of Trump really ready to say this behavior, by a President of the United States should not suffer consequences?
Really?Yes, the "patriots" chose love of Trump over love of country.
Glad you think so. All indications are that Trump will get away with inventing the Big Lie and fomenting the anger and violence surrounding it while his deluded extremist followers take the fall.
The next demagogue will have a green light to do the same and will probably be smarter about it.
Gotta love American justice. The rich and powerful get off Scot free while the "patriots" end up in prison.Yes, one must love American justice and those that actually make our laws, and skirt them to suit their own agenda's. Today in the hearing the defense showed their own vidio of what those on the left have saw fil to say. Each and every example was very clear, one could in no way mistake their words, the very context of their words... They were threatening, asking, and threatening violence. Not dog whistle, clear threats. I have never, and I mean never heard a threat from Trump, ever. So, if you want justice in regards to words... These disgusting human beings need to get in line.
"All indications are that Trump will get away with inventing the Big Lie and fomenting the anger and violence surrounding it while his deluded extremist followers take the fall."
Fomenting violence? Look to the left, their words are direct -- Blow it up, Threating two supreme court justices, get up in their faces, they do what they do. Hopefully, you saw the entire clip. Yeah, maybe they all will get away with it. The left has done nothing for four years but spread pure hate. They are hateful hypocrites.
Trump did not mince his opinion, he did not ask for violence in fact just the opposite. You heard no words out of his mouth that could compare to what many on the left have said, like I said you want to hear words that clearly denote violence you have a listen to the video that the defense offered today. Sickening, vile, and they should not be representing anyone let alone American's! The defense offered truth today and defended Trump using our laws, our constitution. Not fluffy stories that the left-skewed for drama. Today we saw our laws at work.
" Gotta love American justice. The rich and powerful get off Scot free while the "patriots" end up in prison."
So does that justice apply to all the persons that were on the video the defense offered? Each and everyone on that clip's words is clear, no dog whistles clearly asking for a violent act. NO "well maybe they meant this or that. No, very clear context. So, ask yourself how do I explain or defend such violent rhetoric? These words came from the mouths of our Congress people, even our VP.History.
Did you watch the prosecution as well?I am sorry, did the defense show that each of those Democrats spent months lying to their supporters to rile up their anger?
Did the defense show that the people those Democrats were talking to was an angry mob, many who were known to be violent criminals, that they first called to show up on some date in the future to march on some part of gov't? No they didn't.
You bought a false equivalency hook, line, and sinker. Why?I figured 'why bother?' It's just more of what we've been seeing since Trump was elected. No one besides Trump created a Big Lie, pounded it into his supporters' souls, day in and day out, for months, until they were angry and outraged. No one set a date and time for a rally to coincide with a congressional action he didn't want and conveniently located just down the street, urged his supporters to go there, called his VP a coward after the Capitol was breached by his angry mob who were already hunting for Pence with zip ties in hand, then not do a damned thing to call off the mob until hours later after death and destruction had already occurred.
Oh yeah, it's exactly the same. In the mind of a child, maybe.I will be interested to how the Trump apologists here will explain away this latest revelation from a Republican congresswoman where Trump yelled at Minority Leader McCarthy, who was calling Trump to call off his mob, something to the effect that "I guess my mob cares more about the election than you do" (my words but close).
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics … index.html
I also watched where a Trump lawyer effectively called Republican Senator a liar by deny that Tubberville ever talked to him.Yes, I have been following that. There can no longer be any doubt that Trump is a sociopath, if not a psychopath. What a despicable, disgusting man.
Now besides looking into Trump's call with the GA SOS, the GA prosecutors are looking into lackey Graham's call as well. Any bets they both get brought up on criminal charges?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics … index.html
Further, we now have real PROOF that Trump new about the attack on the Capitol as it was happening and REFUSED to do a damn thing about it. I bet he was hoping in his evil heart that Pence and Pelosi would be killed if he didn't do anything. Ultimately, Pence had to call in the National Guard.
It was just reported that Moscow Mitch will vote with the insurrectionists and acquit the instigator of the insurrection - Trump. He needs to be recalled by patriotic KY voters for his disloyalty to the Constitution and the Nation.I see Trumpers here are simply ignoring McCarthy's description of their so-called "law and order" president. You know, the guy who egged on the angry Trump mob after he knew Pence was being hunted.
The man is a calculating sociopath who waited hours after he knew Pence and others were in danger to call off his killer mob and his supporters still defend him.
And they wonder why we consider them a cult.
Now that the door is open to witnesses, here is who I think they out to call:
2 conservative Constitutional scholars to put down the notion that this trail is unconstitutional and that an impeachment is not a criminal trial
2 conservative legal scholars to explain why the 1st Amendment does not apply in this case
3 rioters to testify it was Trump who incited them (they will probably testify to help their own defense)
I have not bought anything. I look at full facts. The persons that were presented on that video spoke violent words, there was no mistaking the context of their words. As I said, no dog whistles, just clearly stated words. I would think if you did not realize that it might be you that bought into a false narrative. Words do matter, but context matters more. These persons are as guilty of harsh political speech as Trump was. It's dangerous no matter who is guilty of using that kind of verbal tactics
Alexandria, Virginia, U.S. On June 14, 2017, during a practice session for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity in Alexandria, Virginia, James Hodgkinson shot U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, U.S. Capitol Police officer Crystal Griner, congressional aide Zack Barth, and lobbyist Matt Mika. The representatives had been practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. James Hodgkinson, a 66-year-old man, asked a passing congressman—South Carolina’s Jeff Duncan—whether Republicans or Democrats were on the field practicing.
WORDS CAN BE DANGEROUS, no matter what party they originate from.Who sent Hodgkinson there? Which Democratic politician suggested he go to the baseball field to shoot Republicans?? Your offer is a perfect example false equivalency!
What "facts" are you looking at? Everyone of them points to Trump inciting an insurrection (which Trump's lawyer said it wasn't).
Why didn't you present "facts" that proved the Democrats who used the word fight were directing the people (many of them simply said words like "I will fight for you" and not "go fight for me") they were directing them to to go stop a government action?"Who sent Hodgkinson there? Which Democratic politician suggested he go to the baseball field to shoot Republicans?? Your offer is a perfect example false equivalency! "
Not sure, but the same concept you are using in regard to Trump --- They heard his rhetoric. From the day he walked into the WH the Dems provoked the public with violent rhetoric. You heard the video at the hearing. Their words were clear, the context could not be mistaken. Words like a punch, kill, shoot, beat, get in their faces, blow up, push back, hit the streets... Trump never used violent words such as what we heard in that video. The proof was clearly presented of what the Dems promoted. Violence and hate. You seem to not recognize these facts, their words.
Your hiding your head in the sand. Very hypocritical. I expect you will come back with a deflect. Don't bother. I want to discuss the Dems words at this point. What did you think about their words on the video the defense presented? Time to take a true look at who you're supporting.Of course you want to talk about the Democrats. It's so much better than hearing and seeing the truth about how Trump gleefully watched his VP being hunted by his killer mob.
It is also called "what aboutism" and "deflecting" away from the real point.
"Not sure, but the same concept you are using in regard to Trump --- They heard his rhetoric." - And that is the exactly the point - his rhetoric incited them to violence. The Dems rhetoric did not.
"Words like a punch, kill, shoot, beat, get in their faces, blow up, push back, hit the streets... " - Are you seriously saying some those words (punch, kill, shoot, beat) came out of the mouths of Democratic politicians? No, I don't think so.
"Trump never used violent words such as what we heard in that video. " - and that is clearly wrong as video of Trump saying just such things were presented by the Democrats. Talk about not recognizing facts, lol."And that is the exactly the point - his rhetoric incited them to violence. The Dems rhetoric did not."
Perhaps that is because others had not watched "their" president subjected to 4 years of incessant attack in continual efforts to remove him from the white house. Only President Trump saw efforts to impeach him before he ever took office. Only President Trump had a years long witch hunt for collaboration with Russia directed at him. Only President Trump had his campaign headquarters wire tapped. Only President Trump suffered through a fake attempt at impeachment, one that failed miserably as soon as it left Democrat control. Only President Trump has had a second attempt at impeachment, again directed by Democrats demanding that the people's choice not be able to return.
Or perhaps it is because others had not watched a year of incessant violent rioting while Democrats alternately ignored or approved of it.
But if it is convenient, and serves your purpose (as it does the Democratic party), then you may make any judgements or calls you might wish to make. Just don't expect others to join you in that - a fair percentage of the country still prefers facts and truth rather than emotion based "arguments" designed to accomplish the stated political goal of preventing voters from being able to return Trump to the political scene.Don't waste your time on deadheads. Some just can't accept truth or facts, and truly have lost the ability to decipher the context of a given statement. They have a great ability to ignore or twist facts.
You are talking about yourself and Wilderness I know.
"Perhaps that is because others had not watched "their" president subjected to 4 years of incessant attack in continual efforts to remove him from the white house." - BOY, what a short memory you have! Your side did that to Obama, who did not deserve it while Trump does, for 12 years. It hasn't stopped even today.
It's pointless to present facts to any Trumper still defending a President (think about that, a President of the United States) who let his mob kill, maim, destroy, and hunt for hours before calling them off. The Trumpers here
are now on record.
Let them bask in their defense of that.Facts and Truth are Trumper's kryptonite or a vampire's daylight.
Well, this was interesting....
The authors found that 40 percent of the more than 400,000 American virus deaths as of mid-January could have been averted if the U.S. had a mortality rate in line with those of the other G-7 nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the U.K.).
https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-medical- … 53943.htmlInteresting article, I found it non-bias and laid out some interesting facts. America for many decades as the author pointed out has been lacks in healthcare for all. It has a system that needs fixing and has been ignored, as the author pointed out over forty years.
Very good analysis of minorities' special problems, and how they have truly been ignored. I did check out the stats on the countries that fared better Japan and Canada clearly did do very well containing COVID. However, the UK, Italy, and France did not appear to do well just comparing the death rates per million ... US 1456 - UK 1686 -- France 1231-- Italy 1535. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
So yes, some certainly had better stats, some not so much. All and all good informative info.
- PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago0
"Let today be the day that we reclaim the definition of patriotism."
Yes. I did! I saw it! I watched some of the closing arguments from prosecution today, and watched news and pundits commenting.
All three produced the same result: Democrats have done a fine job of projecting a very emotional argument, appealing to fear more than anything else, but precious little (actually zero) in the way of actual facts. No calls to be armed, no calls to kill anyone, no calls for damage, not even any real planning. Just spin of political rhetoric to something else. And, of course, the only honest thing said; it is important to Democrats that they never again face Donald Trump in the political arena.Nothing would please us more if Donald Trump ran again.
1.) He's got a whole wing of the Republican party that is fracturing away. 2.) He guarantees a huge turnout from the Democrats who have seen his autocratic ways.
3.) He won't have Twitter as they have banned him for life, so his lies and exaggerations won't get the same attention they did in previous elections. 4.) Many know they cannot trust him to manage a crisis - actually, multiple crises.
5.) He is someone who emboldens white supremacists and inspires domestic terror against Governors and Congress.
But based on his lifestyle of little sleep, poor exercise, and horrible diet, the odds of his health allowing him to run again in 2024 was already slim to none.Speaking of little sleep - do you think those Democrats in Congress will lose sleep over voting the party line rather than where reason, truth and honesty lead them?
Or are they so used to it that it won't bother them at all? Or (third option) there isn't enough reason, truth or honesty left in the party to matter?
Even if "No calls to be armed, no calls to kill anyone, no calls for damage, " were true, they don't have to prove it for an impeachment. All they have to do is that he incited the insurrectionists to attack the capitol and the words from the rioters today prove that in spades.
The simple fact that you are sticking your head in the sand to hide from is they did what they did because Trump told them to. That is what they believe. But to go even further - a president cannot say the words he said without committing an impeachable offense. A private citizen can for sure, but not a president who took the oath of office.
What is cool is the evidence the managers presented is probably sufficient to convict him of inciting a riot in a criminal court as well. I sure hope DOJ tries.LOL Hell will freeze over before their emotional arguments and video clips of a riot can convince an unbiased jury of wrongdoing. Not when the same words have been used by politicians since the beginning of the country.
But I DO find it curious that the only people that can understand the "secret code" Trump used are the far fringe radicals...and Democrats. Is there a connection there?Gosh Wilderness, what have you been smoking? There have been numerous cases of politicians getting in fights and committing assault or murder in capitols all around the country. (I've given a few websites citing my sources for this in other forums so I'm not going back and reciting.) The point is, the assailants were usually tried and convicted of murder. Trump just incited somebody else to do his dirty work.
Yes, I know he did. If, at least, you "interpret" his coded language in just the right way, giving priority to the fear that a few maniacs raised in the legislature. The prosecutor has made that abundantly clear.
Lots of smoke and mirrors... One must stand back, take a breath and realize the Democrats are doing this for show, politics. They know the outcome. They are wasting time, money, and look foolish to many citizens.
I want Congress to get to work on the pressing problems such as stimulus. We don't need a cheap dramatic production, we need them to do their job. So, it odd no one in that hearing brings up the fact we have American's so dissatisfied they were willing to become violent. Smoke and Mirrors. Take my word they all have taken note of the fact American's are no longer willing to put up with the present Government --- Hence the Capitol being surrounded by razor wire and troops.
And this is now America. A government that needs protection from its own citizen. Yeah, you don't hear anyone bringing that up...So, you think the anger and violence displayed on January 6 had little or nothing to do with Trump?
To be truthful, I think these people that committed the crime of attacking the Capitol and appeared to be there to be violent, and possibly harm people were there to support Trump, and doing it in his name. I do not think at all Trump intended to incite a riot at any time. He has been pro-law enforcement as well as condemned the summer violence every chance he has had. But yes, the Jan 6th attack ultimately was connected to Trump. Some of his supporters took it upon themselves to riot in his name. And I do not think he should have continued his voter fraud claims once he saw he has exhausted all legal avenues. He could have pushed for a special counsel or a short investigation, He chose to continue his unproven allegations without thought of how individual supporters would handle the rhetoric. I consider his judgment poor in regards to how he handled his loss. I don't believe he planned the riot or gave that speech to incite the riot.
After the past few days, I feel really very ashamed of our Government. It's very clear that our system is failing, and I think it's failed because our representatives do not have our best interests any longer. I am speaking about both sides. All they clearly care about is keeping their own party in power.
Why were all the people in D.C. on January 6th?
One candidate decided he would not follow precedent and participate in a peaceful transfer of power. That candidate would have to be an idiot to not be aware that many of his supporters are members of violent militias. Organizing a rally that includes many of these people, then telling them to march to the Capitol and fight is either incitement or stupidity. And by voting to acquit, the GOP is declaring that they are fine with someone of that caliber holding the highest office in the land, again. That's either complicity or negligence, take your pick.
"Further, we now have real PROOF that Trump new about the attack on the Capitol as it was happening and REFUSED to do a damn thing about it. I bet he was hoping in his evil heart that Pence and Pelosi would be killed if he didn't do anything."
I must have missed something --- what proof was presented that showed Trump knew about an attack was being planned on the Capitol? Is this an example of your selective thinking, or did I miss the evidence?The Dems ongoing rhetoric for years has promoted violence. They kept violence nightly all summer and still today in Portland. Are you kidding? They promoted hate nightly on CNN and MSNBC.
"Words like a punch, kill, shoot, beat, get in their faces, blow up, push back, hit the streets... " - Are you seriously saying some those words (punch, kill, shoot, beat) came out of the mouths of Democratic politicians? No, I don't think so."
I said DEMS to include Dem supporters as well Dem politicians. And they stirred up violent rhetoric the moment Trump walked into the WH. That's a fact, watch the video I have added. You will witness Dem supporters and Dem politicians unmistakably stirring up violence. So, climb off your high horse. They said some very disgusting things. Far worse than anything Trump has ever said.
Come on --- the video that was shown yesterday of the Dems supporters, as well as our own Congress representatives that you support in Washington, were the very stars of that disgusting video. Maybe you better put your fingers in your ears when you listen to the video and hum. It would appear you either did not watch the hearing or you don't comprehend well any longer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J31rXRjryFA
And no I have never heard Trump say, "put a bullet in him, get up in the face of a congressman and push back, (We need to be ready and able to throw a punch. Nancy Pelosi .) ( I will go and take him out tonight... Maxine Waters) ("You will pay the price." Chuck Schumer ) Make them pay!" And so much more! nasty violent rhetoric.
What a bunch of ugly hateful human beings. enjoy the videoDo you think the gatherings in those videos were "planned"? Were the people listening "gathered" for a reason?
Or did the thousands of listeners somehow just spontaneously arise out of thin air?
Or, on the other hand, the secret, coded message book was different from the secret code book Trump used. Sure wish we could find those secret code books...Yes, I would love to find that codebook. LOl, I have read the Dem's Playbook page by page. I have witnessed it page by page for many years. I love the new page they added --- accuse, open a congressional impeachment hearing without evidence even if unconstitutional, and try to investigate the president's wrongdoing while they proceed with the hearing. What the hell happened to have a case built before accusing, having evidence, and witnesses to justify the hearing? I see today the Dems now want to have witnesses. I knew when I saw the breaking McCarthy report today they would pull this. So, who do you think that first witness will be?
My God and these fools wonder why some felt it time to have a riot at our Government House. I don't condone violence, but it is clear we have some that are willing to fight for change. Now that should wake us all up. But no, our Government sees their way clear to ignore the anger of the people and have a second unconstitutional impeachment. And once again use the new page out of the playbook --- we will try to find the evidence as we go... This is a good feed for the deadheads. I think that's the Chapter one can find this cheap ploy under --- " Impeachment -- Great Feed For Deadheads".
This is so ridiculous. My gosh how the hell stupid has our society become? I am so over this.How stupid has our society become? Pretty darn stupid.
There are people who still believe that Trump is single-handedly fighting a Satan-worshipping cabal of pedophiles and that the election was stolen. A bunch of them stormed the Capitol and are now facing criminal charges.
Imagine that!Not sure where you gleaned your opinion from. I have not come across anyone that holds your belief that "There are people who still believe that Trump is single-handedly fighting a Satan-worshipping cabal of pedophiles and that the election was stolen."
It seems you're projecting what you feel trump supporters think. I never can figure out people that do that. However, hey it's great you shared, it gives me insight into how you think.
And yes, citizens attacked the Capitol, you can say that all day. It's a fact, there is no denying it. My point was it's odd on one ask how we came to this point and actually start considering we have a real brewing problem. That actually should concern us as a nation.There are millions of them - they are called crazy Qanon.
I guess she doesn't read up on those who have been arrested or watch video of interviews with Trump rally goers.
And 43 of the are QOP senators. Now Americans must work hard to 1) get these traitors out of office and 2) start a Constitutional Amendment that removes Impeachment from the Constitution since it now has zero meaning.
That said, I just heard Mitch McConnell basically call for civil and criminal trials against Trump.
Bad, isn't it? Why, we still have people believing that Trump incited a riot by using common political rhetoric that others have used forever.
Or at least they say the believe it while using it as an excuse to prevent the people from ever electing him again. Have to wonder if they truly believe such a thing or if it is just another political ploy...their own words indicate a political ploy, not belief.If that were the only thing he did you might have a point. But, since you are ignoring the bulk of the evidence, you don't.
Unfortunately your "evidence" is just more exaggerated events that others have also done. The only difference this time (and it isn't so different for that matter) is that there was a riot (as we saw all year), that the powerful of our nation were scared and that they had an opportunity to assign blame to their primary political opponent.
Precisely. The amount of information Dan ignores in trying to make his claim is ridiculous.
What a false reality you live in. Prove that more than one or two Democratic politicians do anything close to what you claim. Truth Matters.
"I said DEMS to include Dem supporters " - ISN'T it nice you keep changing the frame of reference. The issue is what Trump said. They you moved to Democratic politicians, and now you move on to "DEM supporters." Will the next deflection be to the "whole world"?Just watch the video in all its glory -- Proof, they are on video in all their glory. I also quoted a few words for word. I did not change anything. I clearly was referring to Dems supporters as well as Dem politicians. I did not change a word in my comments.
I certainly did not claim only Dem politicians made derogator violent statements. Like I said and the video gives proof of what each said.
Perhaps you should read the ongoing conversation to reorient yourself to what I did say. You just go on and on. You make no sense. Again here is a link to the ugly hateful words Democrats spewed to promote their sick rhetoric.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J31rXRjryFAFor someone who constantly talks about context, you sure are ignoring a lot of context. That's okay. We have you on records as being okay with a President egging on an angry killer mob while ignoring pleas from fellow Republicans to call them off.
Ummm, no. You have her on record as not falling for the spin, exaggerations and outright lies being used to "prove" incitement.
Much like the "case" against Trump, you don't seem to understand the difference between disagreeing with opinions presented as truth and events which actually happened.Oh, so she does think he should be convicted for his behavior? Because if she doesn't, she and every senator who voted to acquit said a President can go ahead and do that again without consequence.
A green light was just given for the next wily demagogue who will undoubtedly be smarter and more skilled than TrumpLike I said; before convicting "for behavior" you must prove (in a reasonably honest setting) that the behavior led to something wrong.
They have completely failed to do so. Not even a close call - showing vids of a riot does NOT mean that anything Trump said or did caused the riot, but that's nearly all the prosecution had to offer. Just scary (and sad) videos and sound bites. The closest thing they could offer as proof was statements of criminals trying to excuse their behavior and get a lighter (or no) sentence; something that in any other setting would carry zero weight.
A President (and anyone else in the country, including all politicians) can do exactly what Trump did. Hold rallies, exhort the people to fight and tell them to peacefully march for what they want.
On the other hand you obviously disagree that such things should have a consequence, and that the consequence be very grave indeed. Most of us disagree with that, though - a very good thing for politicians and those holding protests.Again, as is his habit, Wilderness ignores all of the evidence - especially the evidence where the rioters said Trump told them to do it. (I will hear crickets on that, I am sure.)
I was under the impression you didn't watch the case against Trump, so you don't even know the facts.
It's better to discuss the subject matter than to focus on the individual. I know the left, as a whole, has forgotten that. But, change happens one person at a time.
I saw some of it. I saw the vids of the riot, the vids of Trump saying such awful things. I heard that some of those accused of criminal action are trying to say that Trump "made" them do it (is there a person in prison anywhere that doesn't blame someone other than themselves?).
See, you're already twisting. They said they were doing it for Trump,not that h e made them.
Did you see that Trump tweeted that Pence was a coward just ten minutes after Trump was specifically told by McCarthy that Pence was a target and in danger? Did you see that Trump then waited several hours before calling off his mob? Did you see that McCarthy pleaded with Trump to call them off and he told McCarthy that the rioters cared more about the election than McCarthy (siding with the rioters)? Did you see that Trump still waited hours before calling off the mob? Did you see McConnell say the House managers proved their case?"Did you see ...." He doesn't care what the facts are you know.
Sorry, you lose here as well, Wilderness. They were saying this long before they were arrested.
Yep. Long before arrested. And long after the highly publicized effort to find and arrest them.
Your point? That criminals will never lie?Facts, Wilderness, Fact Matter and you rarely get them right as in this case "And long after the highly publicized effort to find and arrest them." - The CORRECT phrasing is "And long BEFORE the highly publicized effort to find and arrest them." as in during and before the insurrection.
Really? They were telling the cops that Trump told them to attack and destroy, to search for and hang legislators, etc. within an hour of the riot? Before cops made arrests?
That's surely news to me!Of course it news to you, you do selective reading and remembering in order to give an insurrectionist a pass for overthrowing the gov't (which he temporarily did)
We have you? " We have you on records as being okay with a President egging on an angry killer mob while ignoring pleas from fellow Republicans to call them off"
And perhaps you could point that comment out to me. Perhaps this is a comment you turned upside down, shook it up, and came up with what you wanted to read. LOL
I will wait for you to provide that I said anything close ---- "We have you on records as being okay with a President egging on an angry killer mob while ignoring pleas from fellow Republicans to call them off."
"We have you" --- Sorry groupthink makes me gag, yuck. Just being honest.Oh, so you agree with the senators who voted to convict Trump?
Again you can't produce the statement you claimed I made. I pointed out the other day how when you are cornered you make an attempt to put words in other's mouths... Here is your last comment that you claimed were my thoughts.
"We have you? " We have you on records as being okay with a President egging on an angry killer mob while ignoring pleas from fellow Republicans to call them off"
Did you come up with a quote where I shared that thought?
I agree on the case that was put forth of the hearing being unconstitutional is right on. I believe the Dems pulled another scam impeachment. I think they did it to stop him from running again. I think they knew the outcome from the minute it came into their heads to impeach Trump again. I think the Dem care about nothing but power. I believe they will have the country failing within six months. I think it won't matter to many that had little to lose anyway. I don't believe Trump planned a riot in any respect. Zero.
Guess that should clear up what I think about both impeachments.If you don't think Trump should be convicted then you are saying future presidents can do what Trump did. Just one of the things he did is ignore pleas from McCarthy to call off the mob, then immediately (within 10 minutes) tweet that Pence is a coward, right after being told that Pence was running for his life. Then, he waited hours before calling off the mob.
Future presidents now have a green light to do that and so much more. I guess you agree with that since you agree with acquittal.Can you describe the rationale in deciding that because Trump failed to gather 1,000 Secret Service members and enter the capital himself to confront the rioters means he incited them in the first place? I'm a little lost in understanding any real connection between the two, even given the obvious impossibility of "calling off" the riot once it had started. (Or did you think that all those rioters carried miniature TV's with them, and watched them without fail, in order to receive new orders?)
(Or did you think that all those rioters carried miniature TV's with them, and watched them without fail, in order to receive new orders?)
Do you mean a phone, Boomer?
Outside of taking selfies I did not notice a single rioter using a cell phone.
But yes, I'm a boomer and have owned a cell phone for only a decade or so. And seldom use it to check for messages. However, without social media accounts how did you think he was going to notify the rioters? Email each one of them? Trust the news media to correctly "forward" his words and then trust that the rioters were glued to their screens, turned to CNN or whatever, waiting for instructions?
I don't see either one as reasonable.Hey bud, I have a couple of well-used extra-long-handled shovels if you want to borrow one.
GA
I am not surprised you fail to see the connection - but it really is simple. The person who started the riot would want it continue, which clearly is what he intended as his conversation with McCarthy proves. When McCarthy corrected Trump's lie about Antifa being involved and told him he knew it was Trump's people, Trump didn't deny it.
"I'm a little lost in understanding any real connection between the two, even given the obvious impossibility of "calling off" the riot once it had started. " - When he FINALLY praised them and told them to go home - they did. Next?Oh my lord, this is pretty darn funny. If you had bothered to know the facts before you entered the conversation you would know that the insurrectuinists were reading Trump's tweets in real time and shouting them out to the crowd. You know how they did that? We have these handy little techie things called smartphones where you can follow live TV and get tweets from your president instantaneously. It's really cool!
And, lo and behold, that's how they knew he was telling them to go home, right as it happened, in real time, just like a tiny portable TV.. Pretty nifty, huh?Okay, I ain't taking sides here, but "I don't care who you are, that there's funny"
GA
You keep defending Trump in what he did - proof enough.
Even Fox News' Chris Wallace understands context...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0vRm9B6lng
- PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago0
Hate to break it to you Trumpers, but you didn't incite a riot if there was no riot.
Where was that riot for Elizabeth Warren? I missed it. lolBut if there is a riot (anywhere at all?) then Trump "incited" it by using the same language Warren did, with the only difference being that Warren is liberal and so did not face the wrath of liberals. Plus, of course, that all important "code" that only liberals can "interpret.
Got it.You would think by now they would see they have very skewed comprehension ability. No really
Wow, you've become a master of projection, almost as good as your hero. Congrats!
Hey, just my opinion. I take it all in, I learn as I go, I pick up nuances, subtle qualities that help me understand a person's personality. Yes, some do appear not to comprehend the subject they are discussing. I can honestly say I have become very accustomed to knowing how some will respond here to my comments. There are few surprises. You project with simplistic insults that you feel will get a rise in some fashion. - like almost as good as your hero. Congrats!
To me, this shows, proves you join in groupthink, your comments are simple and used by other liberals frequintly.
This impeachment is a farce. I have no doubt about it, that actually it is not Congress that is impeaching Donald Trump, but China. I wonder if anybody has thought about it.
McConnell is a nasty little man. That speech at the end. SMH
Had to record it so I just now saw it. Agree.
I'm going to use the Senate impeachment defense next time I'm charged with a crime. You know I'm guilty, but pretend you're a Republican Senator and acquit me any way.
Mitch stands up and admits Trump is guilty after a cowardly vote to acquit. He just admitted his own dereliction of duty.
Or he just undermined the entirety of the rule of law. The Senate voted that it was Constitutional. So Mitch is basically saying that he does not need to abide a ruling of his own chamber and can decide to ignore their own rulings. Mitch just basically set a precedent that his chamber's orders do not need to be adhered to.
The Senate doesn't have the authority to determine constitutional questions. Of course, they can decide constitutionality, as they did in this case, but that decision is not beyond challenge. I think that if Trump had been convicted, then this case would go to the Supreme Court. Where I think it would be found to be an unconstitutional action.
GAI agree that it should have been the Supreme Court, and Trump could have appealed to them.
But, as long as the Senate took a vote on it, and approved it in their own chamber, Senators using that as a reason for acquittal goes against their own decree.
What's to stop me from saying I don't want to follow new tax laws because the Supreme Court has not ruled them Constitutional yet?I went on a Google walk-about to see if I was planting my flag in sand. I have concluded that my opinion appears as valid as contrary ones. Re: The constitutionality issue.
Two cases were most cited; the 1876 Bewlknap case and the 1993 Judge Nixon case.
I came away with three considerations.
1. As My Esoteric noted our Courts have made clear they have no standing, relative to an impeachment power issue, to judge a Senate determination.
2. In both Belknap and Nixon, the Senates declared constitutionality by a simple majority, but in both cases, conviction failed due to the lack of a 2/3 majority.
3. Relative to #2, the constitutionality of the Senates' declarations was a matter for each Senator to decide for themselves with their vote. And in both cases a large enough minority was not convinced the Senates' determinations were right.
The linked Vox article has a simple summation that applies to all the cases cited:
Significantly, the Court’s opinion in Nixon does not mean that legal arguments about whether or not Trump is vulnerable to impeachment are irrelevant. It simply means that it is up to each senator to decide for themselves whether the Constitution permits Trump to be convicted, and that the courts should not second-guess those decisions."
The Belknap case
Vox on the Judge Nixon case and Cornell Law on the JUdge Nixon case.
GAWhat do you think of Mitch delaying the trial, then claiming a trial after a President leaves office is unconstitutional? What would prevent a majority leader from delaying a trial for months? A year? Two years?
This is surely not what the framers intended.
For the record, I am not comfortable arguing constitutionality but I do understand right from wrong and this was wrong.I have not followed your point that McConnel delayed the trial. I am not saying he didn't, but I am not aware that he did. My shallow understanding was that it was Pelosi's decision concerning the timing.
However, even if he did delay it, and even by the extreme of your months or years question, I think I would hold the same opinion. I agree with you that such an action wouldn't be right. A lot of our political actions 'just ain't right'.
As for arguing constitutionality, I'm with you, as in unqualified to make an educated determination. My position is simply how I feel about it. If I had found enough arguments to convince me that how "I feel" about it was wrong I would change how I feel, but I haven't found such conclusiveness in contrary opinions. Being a minority opinion doesn't automatically mean it is a wrong opinion.
GA
And of course this is the question. Once the vote is taken, be it for an election or for the Senate to determine the constitutionality of the trial, does it not matter what the outcome of that vote is?
It seems, by your implication with "And in both cases a large enough minority was not convinced the Senates' determinations were right." it seems to me votes don't matter. So, by extension, Trump was correct in ignoring the outcome of the electoral election and causing an insurrection to back him up.
How are we to govern if Senate votes carry no weight anymore if individual Senators don't like the outcome? I would argue It is not true a "large enough minority was not convinced the Senates' determinations were right." Instead, I would argue that a majority of QOP Senators violated their oath of office by ignoring the results of a legitimate vote and not making a judgement on the facts alone (which by McConnell's speech at the end we know they did not)
I suspect over the next decade or so, the QOP (formally the GOP) will disappear in the same manner the Federalist Party did when they took the side of the British in the War of 1812.I disagree. And your QOP is less than cute.
GAIt may not be cute, but it is nevertheless true. There is no comparison anymore with what the QOP stands for and with what the real GOP used to stand for. Lincoln must be turning over in his grave to see that his party has turned into the Democratic party he despised so much and fought so hard against.
Many state- and local-level GOPs have gone full-blown Q. The leader of our county GOP just shared a photo of Trump with the caption that "Our president is still fighting for us. If you believe, respond "True." Within an hour, she had almost 100 "true"responses and this is a relatively less populated county in Oregon.
These people are crazy.
"The Senate doesn't have the authority to determine constitutional questions. " - Except when the Constitution gives them that authority as in this case - "sole authority" has meaning to me.
What the Supreme Court has authority to review is legislation passed by Congress (judicial review established under Marbury vs Madison), and not individual votes establish by Senate rules, which, repeating myself obviously, the Constitution gives the Senate in case of impeachment.Does not SCOTUS frequently review decisions by lower courts, decisions on whether an action was constitutional or not? Perhaps the "Muslim" ban from Trump, or the "cages" and children? Maybe the decision to keep migrants out of the country? Sure seems to me that the Supreme Court very often reviews actions/events for constitutionality, not just laws enacted by the government.
Apples and oranges. Try studying up on the history of the Supreme Court. Read the text in the Constitution. Oh hell, I'll do that part for you.
Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the
United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under their Authority; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; - to all Cases of
admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; - to Controversies to
which the United States shall be a Party; - to Controversies
between two or more States; - [between a State and Citizens
of another State;-]* between Citizens of different States,
- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under
Grants of different States, [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof;- and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.]*
So, let's pick that apart. Was the Rule and Vote the Senate made:
- "affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;"? - NO
- a case of "admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;"? - NO
- a case where "the United States shall be a Party"? - NO (although I imagine you will try to twist that one out of shape)
- "to Controversies
between two or more States; - [between a State and Citizens
of another State;-]* between Citizens of different States,
- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under
Grants of different States, [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof;- and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.]*" - NO
So where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over another part of the Constitution that gives the Senate Sole Power to try an impeachment? Please point it out.You're right; I will twist the one "all out of shape". If the House prosecutors are not representing the United States in it's action against Donald Trump (making both a party to the action), just who are they representing? Nancy Pelosi? The Democrat party?
"So where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over another part of the Constitution that gives the Senate Sole Power to try an impeachment? Please point it out."
It wasn't the Senate that impeached - it was the House. And if the House did it illegally, does the Senate still have the power to not only try it but enforce it as well?
(Please notice - I did not defend Trump here, I discussed what the SCOTUS can and can't do, what their obligations and authority is. No need to declare once more than I'm defending Trump.)And what does this "You're right; I will twist the one "all out of shape". If the House prosecutors are not representing the United States in it's action against Donald Trump (making both a party to the action), just who are they representing? Nancy Pelosi? The Democrat party?" have to with the Senate having the sole power to set the rules (including the vote on constitutionality) of an impeachment trial? This is just pure deflection.
The fact that House impeached, which is within their sole power is not relevant to anything we are talking about now is it? It was the Senate (you should watch more carefully) that voted that the trial was constitutional. So why are you talking about a House who impeached a sitting president?I notice you call it deflection without ever answering the question. Try again? Who ARE those prosecutors representing? If it is for the "good of the country", then it seems they are representing the country.
But you are correct; it wasn't the impeachment that was under fire as unconstitutional, just the trial. Which does not change the question at all; just who are those prosecutors representing?They are representing their constituents just as Mitch, Ted, Hawley et. al. are representing theirs. Of course, truly representing your constituents means doing your job in an honest manner that protects the constitution and the citizens of this country.
In my opinion, the Democrats did that. Sleazy Mitch took the coward's way out, trying to straddle what is morally right and not getting the Trump base overly ruled up. He delayed the trial then claimed it was unconstitutional to proceed. Greasy MF that he is.Key phrase - " honest manner that protects the constitution and the citizens of this country"
Again you deflect. The prosecutors are not important to the question of whether the Senate can declare their proceeding constitutional .
Ask a relevant, on point question.
Relative to this particular Impeachment issue, I found I was wrong, the Senate does have the power to declare constitutionality issues—but only relative to their conducting actions, such as the decision that a conviction trial of a non-seated official is constitutional.
My understanding of that has changed, but my understanding that the final determination of that constitutionality is still solely the power of each individual Senator. They are within their rights to agree or disagree with the body's majority determination.
I think the links in my response to Valeant support this understanding.
GA'' is still solely the power of each individual Senator. " - to repeat myself from a previous answer - are you arguing each of those Senators are free to violate their oath of office by ignoring the outcome of a valid vote that they lost?
How are they violating their oaths by disagreeing with a majority opinion?
Is it your contention that simple disagreement is a violation of their oaths? Could that be extrapolated to apply to dissenting Supreme Court opinions? Are you contending that any disagreement with a majority opinion is a violation of some oath
GAIt is simple. There oath includes accepting the results of a vote and acting accordingly. That includes their impeachment oath to be impartial which they were anything but. It says "do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws." Since they refused to follow the rules laid out for the impeachment, they broke that oath.
Similarly, they broke the last sentence of this oath they took:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter"
They failed to follow that promise when they chose not to follow the results of the vote that found the trial was constitutional. They nullified the vote just as Trump was trying to nullify the election. Both morally and ethically reprehensible.Again, it appears you are arguing that no one needs to follow the majority votes of the courts and Congress? Do you actually hear what you're saying?
I am aware of what I am saying, we just disagree. I think the data in my previous response to you gives support for my opinion:
"Significantly, the Court’s opinion in Nixon does not mean that legal arguments about whether or not Trump is vulnerable to impeachment are irrelevant. It simply means that it is up to each senator to decide for themselves whether the Constitution permits Trump to be convicted, and that the courts should not second-guess those decisions."
To further explain, the Senators are required to act as jurors. I read the above, (and the scholar opinions of the other two cases previously mentioned), as saying that the body has determined the court can proceed as constitutional, but it is up to each juror to accept or reject that premise in their verdict.
It appears this has been the same determination in each of the three impeachment trials that faced this question. Minority opinions may not win the day but that does not mean they are wrong.
Now, as I write this response, a thought occurs that, in fairness, I just can't let go. It is the question of whether the points of the above quote about the Court's view are pertaining to a Senator's vote deciding the constitutionality as a member of the Senate body reaching a decision, or as a Senator reaching a decision as a juror?
If it is the latter, (which I think it is), then I stand with my opinion, but if it is the former then I may have to give this some more thought. I will see if Google can offer some help.
GAHow many times over the course of our history has Congress, including the Senate, passed a law that was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? And what was the future of that law - changed to something acceptable to SCOTUS, left alone and enforced or simply died?
What does that say about the power of the Senate to be the sole determination of whether something is constitutional?The argument is, and I think it may be a valid one, that the Constitution, by specifically saying the Congress has the sole power to impeach gives them the authority to declare constitutionality, but only in the specific instance of impeachment.
The Court's judgement of laws is a different matter. But even in the case of those laws, the court is still not ruling on the constitutionality of the Congress making them, but on the constitutionality of the product they made.
I like the comparison of dissenting justices' opinions to dissenting Senate jurists' opinions, as in both are valid, even as the minority, but that is about all the help I can see SCOTUS being to this discussion.
GAAs I work through these, I will refer you to GA's answer to this.
I know I have addressed this before, but the way you phrased this "It simply means that it is up to each senator to decide for themselves whether the Constitution permits Trump to be convicted, " made me think of another question and way to approach it.
Why did the Senate even bother to vote on it if what you say is correct?I have also addressed the answer to your question before. My view is that the Senate vote to declare constitutionality was a vote of the body of the Senate with a majority, voting as part of the Senate body, ruling they could proceed.
Relative to the verdict vote, the Senators, although still part of the Senate body, were voting as jurors, in which they had a right to vote their disagreement. Just as they did on the constitutionality vote.
GAAnd what I'm saying is that you are clearing the way for individual jurors to say they disagree with what defines, say murder, not based on a legal definition or evidence but based on their own preconceived notions.
I don't think you are heading in the right direction comparing a contested determination with an accepted definition. The legal definition of murder or constitutional is not contested, but the legal determination of the application of either could be.
GA
Here is the rub though. Many, if not all of those Senators who voted to not convict did so because they disagreed with the majority vote (thereby violating their oath to follow the rules) and decided that vote meant nothing, thereby invalidating the vote.
Their sworn duty was the decide on the facts, not the constitutionality once that was decided. McConnell at least said the facts convinced him Trump was guilty and would have convicted if not for breaking his oath of office and disregarding the will of the Senate.Senate oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."[/i]
So they swear to bear true faith and allegiance to the <Constitution>, not to the will of the majority of the Senate. There is absolutely nothing in that oath saying they will follow the rules of the Senate, OR that they will abide by the will of the majority.
In addition, if they abide by the will of the majority, and the majority is doing something unconstitutional, doing so will mean they violate the oath by abiding by the unconstitutional actions of that majority.
So McConnell, by voting as he did and by the statement he made, was affirming his oath, and he was absolutely correct in doing so.
(Not defending McConnell, Trump, the House or the Senate here - simply a comment on the appropriateness and legality of voting "nay" because of an opinion that the trial was unconstitutional. McConnell could not stop the trial, but he could, and did, vote the only way possible given that opinion of unconstitutionality.)Oh, that is a new one, the Senate is not part of the Constitution. You could have fooled me. I guess they ought to disband since they have no constitutional role in our govt.
BTW, it was not an OPINION of the Senate that the trial was constitutional, it was a formal, legal, binding vote which 43 Senators chose to ignore and therefore violate their oath of office (and the impeachment oath) to uphold the Constitution and all that it contains.I know: you maintain that the vote was binding on all the Senators, and for any and all reasons and for all time.
But the oath you used as a reason for that conclusion does not support it. Instead it very (very!) plainly says that the duty of the individual Senators is to the Constitution, not the incorrect decisions of the majority of other Senators.
And of course your prior comments that the Senate is the final decision on constitutionality is about as false as it can be - that authority resides in the Supreme Court, not the Senate."I know: you maintain that the vote was binding on all the Senators, and for any and all reasons and for all time." - That is true. If isn't, why vote since it has no force or meaning? Are Senate votes simply suggestions?
Now you have circled back to the beginning of the argument. You feel your view is the correct one. Those dissenting jurors most likely felt the same—that their view was the correct one.
There would be no benefit to rehashing how each of us came to our view—again.
GALet's put it this way. If I had been one of those Senators who voted that the trial was unconstitutional and lost (which is what happened), then I would have obeyed my oath of office and taken that as a final ruling and not substitute my judgement for the majority.
I would have limited myself to ruling on the evidence given the vote said the trial was constitutional whether I believed that to be true or not.
Why would I do that? Because to do otherwise leads to anarchy which happens when legitimate votes have no meaning as you suggest they don't..
The vote was binding. That is not an opinion but law. What is my opinion is that they broke the law by ignoring the vote just as it is my opinion that you broke the law if I saw you run a red light. Just like the Senators, you don't have a right to ignore the law (the red light law which required a vote of some sort eons ago) just because you disagree with it. (In this case "law" encompasses binding Senate rules and regulations.)"I would have limited myself to ruling on the evidence given the vote said the trial was constitutional whether I believed that to be true or not."
Then I would say you had abrogated your duty as a juror. Instead of voting your conscience as a juror you voted by majority dictate.
The Senate ruling of constitutionality was not the "final" vote of authority, it was simply the final vote of the majority. If that is how you would reach a decision as a juror, then I can only hope that you would not be a juror in any case involving me.
The vote was only binding in the instance of the Senate's authority to conduct the trial. That is a point that I think you, and others, are misconstruing. The vote did not unequivocally determine the trial''s constitutionality, it only determined it for the purpose of the legitimacy of the Senate proceeding with the trial. That constitutionality was still a determination to be made in each individual Senator's verdict decision.
You say the vote is binding, not an opinion, but a matter of law, yet a SCOTUS opinion, (in the 1993 Judge Nixon case), summarizes it to be a matter of consideration for each juror.
As others have done, you try to equate this impeachment situation with other simplistic 'run a red light' analogies. I say that none of any such analogies are comparable. The most important duty of any juror is to render a verdict based on their understanding of the facts. If a juror does not accept the constitutionality of a trial, how can they possibly render a verdict on the 'other' facts?
If I were one of those Senate jurors I would not have a problem deciding on the presentation of facts about responsibility for the event, but, I could not, in good conscience, render that verdict if I thought the process used to reach that determination was unconstitutional.
That appears to be our difference. You seem willing to accept a rule simply because it is a majority rule. I will only accept a rule if it is a legitimate rule.
The Civil Rights movement was stymied for decades due to majority rules. Do you support that reality? Would your votes on such matters have been dictated by those majority mandates or your conscience regarding right and wrong?
There are no "red light" law comparisons here Scott. It is a matter of offering a verdict of your conscience. That you would subjugate your view of right and wrong to a determination of majority rule does not speak well of core values. And, even worse, if you do not see a Senator's verdict as a product of core values, but rather a decision of majority influence, then I would say you are putting politics above justice.
GA"Then I would say you had abrogated your duty as a juror. Instead of voting your conscience as a juror you voted by majority dictate." - BUT the "judge" instructed the jury to obey his finding that the trial is constitutional and rule only on the facts of the case.
What you are suggesting is that it is OK that juries ignore anything the judge orders.
Also, I thought juries were supposed to make findings based on facts, not conjectures about a settled matter. It is a fact, because the vote said so, that the trial was constitutional. Since it is a legal fact, you seem to saying the Senators have a right to disregard the facts and substitute their own very minority opinion.
Which is exactly what Trump was trying to do - overturn a legitimate vote. Well, to paraphrase you, McConnell and 42 other Trumplicans just said votes in the Senate do not matter anymore, they can be ignored.
Does that mean that asking for recounts, or asking for investigations of voter irregularities, shall never again be allowed?
I doubt it. At least not as long as your chosen candidate wins.Of course it is a non sequitur...as long as it is not your candidate wanting that recount because they don't trust the results.
Certainly Trump should not be afforded the same rights as other people! And if he should have the gall to try, why then it is obvious and irrefutable incitement to insurrection for he is plainly trying to overthrow the government!Which of your many fantasy worlds are you speaking from?
Since the constitutionality of impeaching a non-seated president is unsettled, would it still be a dereliction of duty if the question was finally decided to be unconstitutional by something like a Supreme Court ruling?
I agree with McConnel. I do think Trump is responsible and I don't think the Senate convicting a private citizen of impeachment charges is constitutional.
I also agree with him that there are other more appropriate judicial avenues available to address this now. It may be telling to see what happens next.
GAWell, since the Senate ruled it was constitutional, isn't he bound by that ruling unless it is proven otherwise?
Also, Trump was impeached while he was still President. Are you saying a President can do whatever he wants in the last weeks of his presidency and Congress cannot hold him/her accountable simply because there isn't enough time, or, as in this case, because the president's party declared they will not being him to trial before his term ends?"Well, since the Senate ruled it was constitutional, isn't he bound by that ruling unless it is proven otherwise?"
I had not realized that the Senate had that authority. Can you quote the Constitution where that is laid out? Where it says the Senate, not the President, the House or the Supreme Court is responsible for determining the constitutionality of an action?By your own logic, GOP Senators could not use Constitutionality as an excuse to acquit Trump then. Thanks for making our case for us.
Hmm. Read it as I might, I cannot detect anything in my post indicating what Senators can or cannot do. Only a request for information saying that the Senate determines what is constitutional and what is not. And, of course, the sentence indicating that I do not have that information already.
Here, I will copy what I wrote to GA about that:
"The Senate doesn't have the authority to determine constitutional questions. " - Except when the Constitution gives them that authority as in this case - "sole authority" has meaning to me.
What the Supreme Court has authority to review is legislation passed by Congress (judicial review established under Marbury vs Madison), and not individual votes establish by Senate rules, which, repeating myself obviously, the Constitution gives the Senate in case of impeachment.
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments" Gee, I wonder what "sole" means?
The Senate can declare anything to be constitutional with a simple majority vote. That does not make it so. McConnel voted against that constitutional declaration, so I don't think he is bound to accept the Senate's ruling.
I was surprised to hear Impeachment Manager Joe Neguse call the jurisdiction issue, (the constitutionality issue), a "technicality." I think an issue's constitutionality is much more than just a technicality. And that the Democrats view it as such affirms my belief that their effort wasn't constitutional.
Regarding your question about what Congress can do, in cases such as this, I think their authority to seek accountability—in the Congress—may well be constitutionally limited. As is shown by this case. That may not sound 'right or fair', but that is the constitutional rule we have.
But that doesn't mean there is no other avenue for accountability.
My view is that impeachment was and is intended to protect our nation, not extract punishment. Congress might be upset that 'they' can't get their 'pound of flesh', but that doesn't mean it can't still be gotten by other means.
GAProtecting our nation would be holding a President accountable for inciting an insurrection while in office.
I am no constitutional scholar but it seems the majority of them disagree with you and Mitch.
How convenient for McConnell that he can delay the trial then claim unconstitutionality.
Greasy MF.Could (easily) be mistaken, but I understood it was delayed until after the new Georgia Senators could sit on the trial. Or maybe it was Pelosi that delayed it; she didn't deliver the articles for some time, did she?
And here is his reasoning for not starting the trial. First, the senate was on a scheduled break.
McConnell rejects the emergency session for the impeachment trial before Jan 19th. Makes good sense to me. The Democrats hoped to push through a trial in a very rushed manner. It is customary for a defendant to have time to obtain legal counsel, as well as prepare a defense. At least it once was customary.
Politics Updated on Jan 13, 2021 6:00 PM EST — Published on Jan 13, 2021 1:41 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday blocked a quick Senate impeachment trial for President Donald Trump but did not rule out that he might eventually vote to convict the now twice-impeached president.
Minutes after the House voted 232-197 to impeach Trump, McConnell suggested in a statement that Trump’s Senate trial will not start before Jan. 19, the chamber’s next scheduled business day. It’s also the day before Democrat Joe Biden is inaugurated as president and about the time Democrats take over majority control of the Senate. The timetable essentially means McConnell is dropping the trial into Democrats’ laps.
“There is simply no chance that a fair or serious trial” could end before Biden takes office, McConnell wrote. He said it will “best serve our nation” if the government spends the coming week “completely focused on facilitating a safe inauguration and an orderly transfer of power” to Biden.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/m … -for-trialA week after Trump incited the insurrection at the Capitol, Schumer asked McConnell to hold an emergency trial and he refused.
Sharlee's post refreshed my memory. I probably didn't put your "delayed the trial" charge in the right context because I don't think 6 days between charging and trying really amounts to a purposeful delay.
Just imagine the judicial and fairness arguments that would come if that standard was applied to any other instance of accusation and judgment.
GAYes, it's very convenient, isn't it? The crime was caught on camera for the whole world to see. The Trump lawyers didn't even bother to defend against the actual crime.
The point is, Mitch used an excuse to acquit after creating the excuse.
Like I said, greasy MF.The Senate calendar was established well before Jan 6, so how do you determine that McConnell "created" the excuse?
MF? I hope that doesn't mean what I think it does.
GAWhy? I cuss when I'm pissed. I have to be very pissed, though. My longest string of cuss words came when I blew out my ACL and MCL on a landing in martial arts class. That really pissed me off.
I cuss too. Frequently. But "F" or "MF" is never a part of that cussing. As once asked . . . do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
But, to be real, I have used "F" on rare occasions, but they are very rare occasions and very extreme circumstances—like when I burned-out my table saw in the middle of a very crucial porch post 4x4 cut.
GATo my memory, I have never called another person that name. Mitch is special.
Okay, as long as it is a 'special" designation. ;-)
GAlol. No, I think I've called Barr a toady and I know I've called Trump a POS. In my mind, they're all accurate in their own way . Though Barr did finally demonstrate he has some limits.
Senate calendars are often changed when there is a good reason like this one. McConnell chose not to call the Senate back into session so as to give Trump an out, by his flawed theory.
One outcome of all of this is over 140,000 Republicans in 25 states have left the party. I am sure there will be many more.
Even more will get sick to their stomachs when they learn insurrection-loving L Graham (I can't even call him a senator now) will push to impeach Vice President Kamala Harris of posting bail for some peaceful Black Lives Matter protestors if the Trumplicans ever take back the House while he revels in Trumps successful insurrection. What a disgusting human being - almost as bad as Trump.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 02201.htmlYes. At least some Republicans have a minimum standard of decency.
If they were being peaceful they would not need to be bailed out of jail. She should be censure for her actions. Have a look at a few she got back out on the streets. She is a radical dangerous human being.
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/rep … c-abusers/Oh give me a break. They were black and at a protest, that is all it takes to get arrested.
Really, how about these protesters that ended up being bailed out with cash Harris helped raise.--- There are many many more, not hard to find. names face criminal charges former criminal charges. Like I said she is dangerous, and a true radical.
Darnika Floyd is charged with second degree murder, for stabbing a friend to death. MFF paid $100,000 cash for her release.
Christopher Boswell, a twice-convicted rapist, is currently charged with kidnapping, assault, and sexual assault in two separate cases. MFF paid $350,00 in cash for his release.
31-year-old Donavan Dexter Boone, accused of strangling a woman in front of her minor children;
28-year-old Davlin Devonte Gates, accused of strangling a woman;
29-year-old Matthew Owens Earl Thomson, accused of breaking into a woman’s home;
53-year-old Tyrone Thomas Shields, accused of punching his wife in the head and threatening to “keep beating”;
29-year-old Reece Omaur Bonneville, accused of assaulting his partner; and
40-year-old Marcus Marshun Butler, accused of assaulting his girlfriend.
https://pjmedia.com/election/matt-margo … rs-n780564And how about all the people Trump is responsible for killing because of his failed Covid response? There is a more direct connection there than what you are suggesting.
Back to basics. Trump CAUSED the insurrection which led to people dying.
Harris did not DIRECT who received bail money. Her motives were good. Trump's motives were evil. Now, it is clear from your defense of the indefinable that you either do not understand or appreciate the difference, but the rest of us do.
If you did either, you would not try to make such ridiculous assertions.
Also, I have to take your link's veracity with a large amount of salt. But one thing I did learn from it is Graham lied. Harris didn't bail anyone out as he claims. Instead, she helped create a website for bailing out peaceful protesters (which I know are the same as rioters to you).
So, you feel that her posting a link to a group that helps raise funds for bail, a process with clear racial and socioeconomic inequities as black men pay 35% higher money amounts than white men, is radical. Are you in favor of racist practices?
And how disingenuous of you to say she got people back on the streets when the MFF decides where to allocate their $31 million in funding.Have you noticed Sharlee shows much more indignation over a few bad results from an empathic gesture than the deadly insurrection led by Trump for vile personal gain? Interesting perspective, don't you think?
First --- You flipped the conversation bringing up Harris. It hit me you were calling Graham a disgusting human being. While setting Harris on a pedestal stating --- "Harris of posting bail for some peaceful Black Lives Matter protestors". I simply provided you with some of the persons that were bailed out by the organization she soliciting for. Very apparent she should have done some homework into the organization that bails out violent criminals. Seems she is very much ab airhead. It also seems you should have done a bit of research on this outfit that bails out criminals before glorifying them.
MyEso --- "Even more will get sick to their stomachs when they learn insurrection-loving L Graham (I can't even call him a senator now) will push to impeach Vice President Kamala Harris of posting bail for some peaceful Black Lives Matter protestors if the Trumplicans ever take back the House while he revels in Trumps successful insurrection. What a disgusting human being - almost as bad as Trump."
The comment that you brought up Harris https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175380
Again a few of the citizens MMF paid bail
The bail fund posted $15,000 for the release of Shawn McClinton, a convicted sex offender facing rape charges. Prosecutors say McClinton raped a woman just weeks after his July release. He's back in custody and facing aggravated rape, kidnapping, strangulation and other new charges.
Darnika Floyd is charged with second-degree murder, for stabbing a friend to death. MFF paid $100,000 cash for her release.
Christopher Boswell, a twice-convicted rapist, is currently charged with kidnapping, assault, and sexual assault in two separate cases. MFF paid $350,00 in cash for his release.
31-year-old Donavan Dexter Boone, accused of strangling a woman in front of her minor children;
28-year-old Davlin Devonte Gates, accused of strangling a woman;
29-year-old Matthew Owens Earl Thomson, accused of breaking into a woman’s home;
53-year-old Tyrone Thomas Shields, accused of punching his wife in the head and threatening to “keep beating”;
29-year-old Reece Omaur Bonneville, accused of assaulting his partner; and
40-year-old Marcus Marshun Butler, accused of assaulting his girlfriend.
https://pjmedia.com/election/matt-margo … rs-n780564
And let me add --- Sharlee has much indignation over anyone that breaks the law or supports violent lawbreakers... For instance, Harris..."Sharlee has much indignation over anyone that breaks the law or supports violent lawbreakers..."
With one very notable exception.Really... So predictable. Blah Blah Trump Trump Trump... Seems you think a lot about Trump. I actually have moved on. Seems very hard for you to stay current. Maybe time to have a look-see at what's current. I can see it hard, harder for some here than others.
I must point out Trump actually has not been arrested in his lifetime. Maybe if you pray really hard... It would sen the Democrats have tried pretty hard to get him on --- anything. And wasted lots of money and time doing so. But, it did give a bit of cover to hide the fact old Joe has not left the WH since he walked in. And the all kind of crazy he is doing ridding us of all of the really good things Trump provided us. But, he is bringing back Obama 2.0 Wee... The main reason Trump was elected was to rid the country of Obama's agenda. Go figure. And we now have an about-face, and head back down a road that was a washout.
I was referring to the fact that he supports violent protestors. That's why that part was bolded.
He tells them to "stand back and stand by" and they feel so supported by the then-President that they incorporate the phrase into their logo and use it everywhere. He tells them he loves them after they kill, maim, and destroy. He tells them he will pay their attorney fees if they punch somebody.
Pretty darn supportive if you ask me.I was responding to this comment --- PRETTYPANTHER WROTE:
"Sharlee has much indignation over anyone that breaks the law or supports violent lawbreakers... With one very notable exception."
I was responding to the full context of your comment... Mainly your simple added thought ---" With one very notable exception". You were implying I
My response was very much addressing your comment-- I was simply stating Trump has not been charged with breaking the law. So why would I hold anger against Trump for breaking the law, and I certainly don't feel Trump supports lawbreaker either. So, no exception.
Sharlee -- I must point out Trump actually has not been arrested in his lifetime. Maybe if you pray really hard... It would sen the Democrats have tried pretty hard to get him on --- anything. And wasted lots of money and time doing so. But, it did give a bit of cover to hide the fact old Joe has not left the WH since he walked in. And the all kind of crazy he is doing ridding us of all of the really good things Trump provided us. But, he is bringing back Obama 2.0 Wee... The main reason Trump was elected was to rid the country of Obama's agenda. Go figure. And we now have an about-face, and head back down a road that was a washout.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175482This reply makes zero sense to me as it addresses none of the substance of what I said.
I did not think it would... You did not understand it the first time around. I think the original comment is the best evidence of what you posted and what I reacted to. Can't help you any further than that. Not going around any further with this conversation, seems a waste of energy.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175482You link also makes no sense. I agree, there is no reason to respond to nonsensical posts.
Here is the link that started the conversation. Cotext is clear in your comment, as well as my response. You can change make an attempt to claim you meant something other than what you appeared to state. Have at it. I am done with the back and forth. I swore I would not respond or get caught up in your comments. --- My Bad
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175482
"I was simply stating Trump has not been charged with breaking the law." - BUT That was not the point, whether he was breaking the law or not. The point is he embraces violent elements of the right-wing and in this case, sent them to attack the Capitol in order to stop Congress from voting - in which he succeeded for awhile.
I can imagine Sharlee using the same excuse with Al Capone - until the day he was arrested for tax evasion. He was, of course (and like Trump) as pure as the driven snow when it comes to, in Capone's case, murder. I am guessing Sharlee's argument goes that because Al Capone was never arrested, tried, and convicted for murder or conspiracy to murder, he never did such a thing.
As to washout - explain why almost all (if not all) historians who rate such things find that Obama is somewhere between the 1st and 13th best president ever!
While the same ones who have expressed an opinion say that Trump is the worst or next to worst of ALL presidents.
What do you know that they don't?53 historian give their views of Obama's presidency. Not pretty... As a rule, would post a few quotes to prove a point. This time I will not, I have no reason to insult Obama. I always said I feel he is probably a great human being just not presidential material. In my view, his presidency was a washout. He was in over his head at every turn.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/01 … egacy.html
Not sure about your hyperbolic analogy Trump / Capone. You can always hope Trump gets arrested if that will help you let him go.Way too long to take in one sitting but from what I did read, there were criticism (as there should be since he was not perfect) and praises (as there should be because he did many great things as well).
What I didn't see (maybe it was at the bottom) was a ranking.
Here is the most current ranking that I know of that is available:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica … ted_States
I like it because, like your link, it presents what appear to be many unbiased reviewers. And, as I said earlier, Obama ranks between (I'll be a little more precise here) between 8th and 18th. The top third would stop at 15th (he had three scores about it and two below it),
But then there is Trump, who admittedly only had two ratings so far, 42nd and 44th. Obama's rating from these two raters were 17th and 8th, respectively.
Also, nothing hyperbolic about the Trump/Capone application of your logic.The article I provided is non-bias, there are some historians that had positive opinions, some with poor opinions, some with my opinion he was a nice articulate man that the job was just over his head. You need to understand I am being honest with my opinions. We all have different opinions, as my article shows. This is a case where we can agree to disagree.
I have also al almost the same opinion on Bush. My opinion of Trump is certainly not completely positive. I would say he was not a nice articulate man, he was abrasive, off-handed, but he was a problem solver. I am just straight forward. I tell it as I see it.
If I were to choose who I would prefer as a friend between Trump or Obama, I would choose Obama. If I need a problem solved I would call on Trump. There is just no need to even compare the two-man. As far as I am concerned they are both past presidents. It seems no one even acknowledges we have a new president....
The party line of the QOP, Valeant, is there is no systemic racism. None, nada, zip, zero. America is a perfect nation with no wide-spread discrimination (except maybe against whites).(to those who don't get it, that is sarcasm)
Harris lent her time, and publicly on several venues asked people to donate. Maybe you should check this organization, and who they were bailing out. I don't appreciate a representative of our country supporting an organization that bails out murders, raped pedophiles... need I go on?
She supported them on social media (her Facebook, Twitter as well as TV gigs). Hey, I find her to be an airhead, that actually may not have known who this group was bailing out. With all the violence that was occurring at the summer riots, she should have used better sense than to support those that were arrested.Her social media posts on June 1 were specific in that she was supporting the MFF's role in providing support for those protesting in Minnesota surrounding the Floyd protests. Friendly reminder that Floyd was killed on May 25. Harris' post occurred just a week later in the height of protests.
Now, as people began criticizing the MFF for not having spent the vast money raised (around $20 million) on bail initiatives, they began branching out to those that you noted, well after Harris lent them support.
What your post fails to provide is the dates that all those violent offenders began to receive support from the MFF. Harris was specific that she supported the MFF for their efforts to bail out protestors. But you decided to leave that part out to smear her, which is pretty disgusting.Harris started her support for MMF in early June. As her first tweet shows, as does her TV interviews show. The person's I posted were released during the summer riots. She has never walked balk her support.
Aug 13, 2020
"The bail fund posted $15,000 for the release of Shawn McClinton, a convicted sex offender facing rape charges. Prosecutors say McClinton raped a woman just weeks after his July release. He's back in custody and facing aggravated rape, kidnapping, strangulation, and other new charges. His lawyer didn't respond to an email seeking comment Wednesday. https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/08/12/ma … t-released
The organization in recent weeks has also paid roughly $85,000 to bail out a man facing attempted murder charges and has paid out tens of thousands of dollars more for the release of others, including a man accused of robbing five women and another facing three counts of child rape, The Boston Globe has reported."
All the persons I listed was arrested during the summer riots. and bail's posted during the ongoing protests. There are literally tons of articles that provide names, as well as their previous crimes.
Believe whatever you please, you do as a rule.I will...I will believe you are trying to attack Harris' social justice reform stance by tying her to things that an outside group chose to do on a separate issue. Just the latest smear campaign, but this one contains a nice racial tinge to it.
I have not heard or read anything to indicate she has really aided in any form of social justice. I would be pleased if you offer a bit of what she is doing. And please don't offer up a flower speech, that and 4 bucks will get me a Starbucks coffee. I am very open-minded, hax she put forth a real workable agenda on social justice. Lot's of lip service on the subject, and keep in mind she was a Senator, she did zip on social justice.
She did little in her time in Congress.
https://www.congress.gov/member/kamala- … amp;page=1
https://projects.propublica.org/represe … nsored/116
So what is she working on?Not true, you read her posts on June 1, which was an attempt to aide protesters secure bail who had been arrested during peaceful demonstrations. She marched in DC with Corey Booker and has spoken out against the two different systems of justice we have in the country, the one for white folk and black citizens.
As a prosecutor, her role was certainly not pro-social justice as she needed to have a working relationship with police. I don't fault her for that.
As for what she is working on now, she is assisting the Biden presidency.Are you kidding me she was asking for donations for the Minnesota riots?
Those riots were horrendous... They started May 28th and burned looted and maimed the police officers. Give me a break. And Harris took her show on the road. She has never walked back being associated with MMF.
Please, "She marched in DC with Corey Booker" That's it, all you got? Seems she and done nothing but walk, and flap her jaw. How did you like her record as a Senator? Lot's of nothing. She was brought on the Biden ticket for three reasons, she is part black, a female, and a radical leftist.
And yes she is helping the president. Please note how she is with him, standing behind to the left of him every time he makes any form of a statement. I don't think I have ever witnessed this in any other presidency. She may be more of a handler. I have not seen her off and doing anything on her own. She is just VP, as a rule, they do have tasks that have assigned to them. However, I will give her a wait and see.
https://www.facebook.com/KamalaHarris/p … 194687923/
https://nypost.com/2021/02/03/man-twice … ted-again/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5w0v8XsI9II'm going to stop engaging with someone that would post such a blatant lie as this one:
'Are you kidding me she was asking for donations for the Minnesota riots?'
You have left reality behind, enjoy your delusional world.Let me rephrase that. comment. Although I know dam well you knew what meant.
Are you kidding me she was asking for donations to bail out thugs that got themselves arrested in violent Minnesota riots? Riots where these thugs burned, looted and took over a police station, $500 million 1,500 property locations 150 buildings set on fire, one dead, 19 shot. What a great movement, what a peaceful protest... I can see why KH wanted to help pay to bail for these persecuted protesters.
Hopefully, this gives a good clarification of my prior statement.
I see I hit a nerve with bringing up Harris's record, as well as her radical behavior. Maybe you should back away from the conversation. More than willing to step away. Although I just did a bit of research into KH past, not pretty. And not necessary to post it. I will be more than pleased to drop it.
I will say, ish she was not our VP.Your complete ignorance of her request to bail out protesters, as was included in her posts, and insist that she was siding with rioters is the ridiculous lie that only those who have deluded themselves with hate try to convince others to believe. You trying to link her to the rioters and other criminals I find to be about as racist as you can get.
I, for one, am sick of trying to converse with people who invent their own reality and who ignore substance to create some weird, fantastical storyline that suits their little bubbles.
Time to me to take a break. See you in a couple of weeks.Yes. That's why Im trying not to interact with those fringe elements in the forums.
You know what --- you should not have to push away. Common sense tells me I am one of the people that makes you wary of posting. It is very obvious we will never agree on anything. Clearly Vinger and oil. I will make a promise not to comment on your posts, you do the same. You have a right to converse with those you find it comfortable to do so. Hey, if ya feel like commenting on something I say -- that's good too. I will just pass the comment by. I don't care for the constant headbutting either.
Once again --- Are you kidding me she was asking for donations to bail out thugs that got themselves arrested in violent Minnesota riots? Riots where these thugs burned, looted and took over a police station, $500 million 1,500 property locations 150 buildings set on fire, one dead, 19 shot. What a great movement, what a peaceful protest... I can see why KH wanted to help pay to bail for these persecuted protesters.
She linked herself to the issue perhaps not even realizing what she was doing. She seems to be an airhead. Know that's scary.
Racist, not sure how it's racist. Do tell? I pointed out some pure facts OK - Did she support the MMF group on Twitter as well as Facebook? Did she ask for donations to bail out people that were arrested in the Minn riots? She sided with the rioters! She asked for donations to bail them out. Get real.
Face book --Kamala Harris
· If you’re able to, chip in now to the Minnesota Freedom Fund to help post BAIL FOR THOSE protesting on the ground in Minnesota.
https://www.facebook.com/KamalaHarris/p … 194687923/
Question --- How can you justify this kind of action? She did what she did. Al;l your dancing around it changes zip. How do you justify your opinion against the facts I have offered you? One more question, and naturally you have every right not to answer.
What if Trump supported bailing out protesters that were burning and looting and being violent? Because factually that's what went down in Minn.The fact that you cannot discern between those that would protest the death of an unarmed black man in the street, and those that showed up at night to be opportunists and riot is what makes your posts reflect so badly upon you.
Ohhhhh... LOL Whatever.
You seem to be getting personal. I don't appreciate you critiquing what I can discern, and accusing me of showing racism. Or this little gem --"You have left reality behind, enjoy your delusional world."
I feel you might be entering into a frenzy. I am backing away from the conversation. How about me just saying KH is wonderful, so brilliant, kind, so lucky to have her working to make all better. Yeah, that should do the trick.That would be more realistic than you saying Harris was trying to assist in the promotion of riots. That's for sure.
I never said she promoted riots. I said she asked for donations for MMF to bail out protesters. She promoted an organization that bailed out criminals. She should have checked out who she supported or at best walked her support back.
Actually, you never answered my questions.
Question --- How can you justify Harris's action? She did what she did. How do you justify your opinion against the facts I have offered you? Did Harris ask for donations to bail out protesters that were arrested in Minn on Twitter and Facebook?
What if Trump supported bailing out protesters that were burning and looting and being violent? Because factually that's what went down in Minn.'She sided with the rioters! She asked for donations to bail them out. Get real.' - Sharlee
Not even close to what she posted. Complete smear to insinuate it.To quote Harris in her own words for the third time "Kamala Harris
·
"If you’re able to, chip in now to the Minnesota Freedom Fund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota."
https://www.facebook.com/KamalaHarris/p … 194687923/
She did side with the rioters she asked for donations to bail them out. I love posting this over and over... Sooner or later it will sink in.
Again --- Question --- How can you justify Harris's action? She did what she did. How do you justify your opinion against the facts I have offered you? Did Harris ask for donations to bail out protesters that were arrested in Minn on Twitter and Facebook?
What if Trump supported bailing out protesters that were burning and looting and being violent? Because factually that's what went down in Minn.So now we have it, if you peacefully protest where some criminal (some of whom were right-wing) did something bad or very bad, that makes, in your mind, EVERY peaceful protestor a rioter.
Makes sense to me - if I were right-wing.We were discussing one protest - Minn protest. WE IN NO RESPECT WERE DISCUSSING ALL PROTESTERS. We were talking about those arrested in MInn riot. Your deflecting,
No, I think most people would surmise if one is arrested at a riot, they were certainly doing something that would be considered breaking the law. At no point in this thread have I said there were not some peaceful protesters at the Minn riot. The riot we speak of was one of the worst. I posted the status of damage, death, and injury, as well as arrests some 650 people. It was violent for nights, And someone pointed out the real rioters came at night, This is true, and this was when the majority of the arrests were made. These were the people that were being bailed out by MMF. In no respect did I say all that were protesting in Minn were violent.
I really object to you even saying that.
And I am certainly not aware if the people arrested in Minn were from a right or left the group. I would find it odd if MMF would bail out right-wingers. That makes no sense at all.Nope, I was discussing that protest. You are maintaining that every person there was a rioter.
BTW - don't think we haven't noticed how you have deflected to something that is a false equivalency of the President of the United States inciting, calling together, inciting some more, and then sending a well-armed, violent, deadly mob to stop Congress from doing its lawful duty of certifying his opponent as president with a then-Senator suggesting people go to a web site dedicated to bailing out people who can't afford bail.
BTW, they will try to bail out anybody who can't afford it, regardless of political bias. Hell, they would even try to bail you out if you needed it.Of course you have when are clearly wrong. Since you can't prove yourself right, rather than admitting you are wrong, you lose interest.
I was in no respect wrong I posted factual quotes. It would be you that did not comprehend the very simple point I was making. What I have noticed when you are faced with facts. You deflect quickly. You can't really comprehend facts well. Follow our conversation, you will see my point. You also become personal. Took everything I had not to report Val, and you for insinuating I am a racist. You need to check yourself. I for one will not put up with you getting personal. You have been warned, I will report you. Ya overstepped your bounds, and this lady does not intend to take it any longer. You should have been quicker and deleted your MLK comment... And when it comes to being wrong, I will stand behind my facts anytime. Facts are facts, and IMO one looks very unintelligent when they try to skirt them.
"I was in no respect wrong I posted factual quotes." - yes you did but then chose to make non-factual claims about those quotes.
Truth means nothing to the right-wing extremists.
"Are you kidding me she was asking for donations to bail out thugs that got themselves arrested in violent Minnesota riots? " - THAT is no better and just as much a lie as your first comment.
I quoted Harris several times. and offered the link to her Facebook link where she posted the comment.
You don't comprehend well. In my comment do you see quotation marks on my comment in regards to KH bailing out thugs? That is my
opinion.
"If you’re able to, chip in now to the Minnesota Freedom Fund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota."And your opinion that all of those protesting the killing of an unarmed black man in the streets are thugs is concerning to all in these forums.
Once you can understand that peaceful protesters sometimes can get arrested too, there will be a lightbulb moment. Such as the 493 people faced with charges of violating the executive curfew order or unlawful assembly—nonviolent misdemeanors punishable by 90 days in jail or a $1,000 fine.First I have not uttered a word about Mr. Floyd or his death at the hands of the police. And don't appreciate you supplying an opinion for me on his death. This is the third time you have referred to me as a racist, This is totally unacceptable. And hopefully, everyone on this forum will take note of this harassment.
I don't take being called a racist me lightly. I suggest you avoid my comments. I will report you if you continue this form of personal attack. You do this frequently, and I am done putting up with it.Do you see from the stats I provided you and understand that there were hundreds of peaceful protesters arrested during the unrest? Could Harris have been aiming to support this group of people that I just listed for you? Where in her post did she mention rioters? Nowhere is where.
The fact that you immediately jumped to her supporting the violent elements of the unrest, despite her clearly stating that she was supporting the protesters, you know, that thing that is guaranteed in our Constitution, is where I see an issue.
And potentially understanding Harris' stance on bail reform may help you understand her motivations for evening the playing field between the wealthy and the poor. There wouldn't have been much gripe if these people could have afforded to bail themselves out.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ … th-penaltyI see you quickly removed your comment where you called me a racist. I will ask you once more not to enter a conversation with me. I will have no problem reporting you. I would think it should be simple enough not to comment on my posts. I know the rules here state one must not get personal. So, I guess you will have to imagine the opinion I have
formed of you.
This is where I entered the conversation in regard to Harris and her Twitter and Facebook request. minus the one you deleted. The progression shows my opinion, with the fact offered. That's where it all went bad. You just do not comprehend facts well, you pivot and make attempts to read in the context that just is not there.
.https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350587/impeaching-donald-trump---again?page=23#post4175380
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175387
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175389
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175405
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175462
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175464
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175472
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175490
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175496
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175507
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175537
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175549
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175552
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175555
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175557
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175562
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175566
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175592
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175600
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175604
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175607
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175609
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175612
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175617
"Are you kidding me she was asking for donations for the Minnesota riots?" - No she wasn't. She was asking for bail money for peaceful protestors (I know, I know, those are rioters in your mind) who the police improperly arrested.
Again Oh Really. And they were arrested for being peaceful? WOW, who would have guessed. Don't you think that's a bit ridiculous? Did ya have a look at the people that were being bailed out? I posted lots of examples. Maybe you missed their names and rap sheets... I offered you tons of thugs that were bailed out by MMF. You don't want to believe facts that are your problem, not mine.
This was uncalled for. I guess you picked up on Valeant's racist comment. At this point, I will ask you politely to stop communications with me. I have asked you before not to get personal. Over it at this point.
Why? MLK was a protester where violence occurred, so by your definition, he is a rioter. See where your broad brush lands you?
That is the way extremist (left of right) do things.
So Harris supported a group that might have helped release some accused (not convicted) violent protestors among the many more peaceful protesters who were helped.
A manufactured controversy.If peaceful, why arrested? I can't even imagine if Trump were hooked to a bunch like MMF. But stay on course. I pretty well knew your comment on this was coming, and almost hit on the exact words you used. My friend with me this morning said I was being a mean girl predicting what you were going to post... You need to change up your material. Maybe we all do?
Wow, I'm flattered that you spend that much time thinking about me. I just re-read what I wrote and I fail to see anything wrong with it, but hey, whatever floats your boat. Tell your friend what awful thing I said and maybe she'll still think you're a mean girl. lol
In answer to your question, "if peaceful why arrested"? I don't know why police arrest peaceful protestors. Intimidarion? I have a friend who lives in Portland who was merely standing with a sign but was distracted and got separated enough from the group that a police car drove up, a cop jumped out, grabbed her and shoved her in the car. She was arrested but when her boss showed up and started asking questions (she works for a large law firm in Portland) they let her go. She was a fortunate white protestor. Others are not so fortunate.Actually, you would not see anything wrong with what you posted. That is apparent.
"PRETTYPANTHER WROTE:
So Harris supported a group that might have helped release some accused (not convicted) violent protestors among the many more peaceful protesters who were helped.
A manufactured controversy."
Your comment said a lot --- It very contexts said -- "so what if some violent criminal is bailed out among the peaceful protesters". And you bit about "she was so fortunate she was white... " Yeah, the police were just arresting peaceful protesters... Bad Police. That sounds ridiculous, they did not have enough space to house the protesters that were being violent and unruly yet they were picking up peaceful protesters.
As I have said many times our thought process is very different. That's putting it politely.Yes, she is lucky she was white, otherwise they might have shot her like they do many other non-whites (or kneeled on her neck or chest until dead).
And yes, if a policeman abuses his (normally) or her power, which is frequent, then they are BAD POLICE. Fortunately, that is not the norm, but nor is it rare. What is the norm is that the police almost always cover up their bad apples - which disgraces the entire police department.
You know who did hold their fire (and after a point, probably should ot have) are the Capitol police facing a white mob.
"... a bunch like MMF"??? I presume you mean MFF, Minnesota Freedom Fund? The fund that -
"... envisions a world where justice restores the humanity and dignity of all involved. We fight to exist in a world where every individual has access to resources to lead healthy and full lives. "
whose mission is to -
"pays criminal bail and immigration bonds for those who cannot otherwise afford to as we seek to end discriminatory, coercive, and oppressive jailing."?
Is this the low life criminal enterprise you are talking about that VP Harris should be impeached over?
Given that the GOP has become the QOP and SO many who identify has Republican's believe the Trump insurrection was a false flag operation and that he actually won the election in a landslide, I think the Democrats are heading for a BIG WIN in 2022.
The more extreme the QOP gets, the more former Republicans they will drive into not voting or voting for Democrats. America will ultimately turn away from fascisms and conspiracy theory believing nut jobs.
It's awful to read all these. America is in real trouble. IMHO, why did the Americans voted for such dirty candidates like Joseph Biden and Harris Kamala? If I had the chance, I would have vote for a self righteous person then the monkey hidding under the cover of religion. Who think Trump was completely wrong in sayying that the November 2020 elections was a fraud and that he was cheated out of the election? The whole truth will unfold later. Meanwhile, God save America.
"America is in real trouble. " - Couldn't agree more. It is almost like we are back ti pre-civil war times when the conservative, pro-slave states were agitating to secede with Jefferson Davis (Trump) at their help and KKK-type (think Proud Boys and Oath Keepers) organizations doing his dirty work.
Who think Trump is wrong? A bunch of Trump appointed judges, a bunch of patriotic Republican officials, and almost all of America. Only a few misguided, uninformed, possibly Russian agents as yourself think otherwise. Are you a Russian agent? You sound like one.Hey, really? Me a Russian agent? Have you ever meet a Russian agent other than me that prays for America's good? I agree that the Judges show high sense of responsibility in handling the election challenges Trump found disadvantageous...and no doubt he has benefit from same law as all his Judges assert. No need to change these laws. Am I the only one saying America is in Trouble? You seems to be an American from the tone of your voice. America First! God save America.
This user does not hesitate to label others at random -- just about anything he pleases. So, don't feel your the only one that's been called a Russian agent.
What's a Russian agent? IMHO, a Russian agent is none other than Kim Filbe. Kim says he's British and yet spy for Russia. No Brit will ever do that. Have you heard James Bond spy for Russia or other communist countries? I doubt any American citizen or American minded person will do that. A label is nothing other than a description. It's not the real thing.
So good to hear from you. As you see many feel it their very duty to reply to posts that are not directed to them. This is not against the rules on an open forum, but as you see some do jump in and flip-flop around with the subject matter.
And you are not the only one that is quickly developing the opinion America is in trouble. We have a president that is being dictated to by a radical element. And in my opinion, he is not making any decisions of his own. He is getting rid of many wonderful things Trump provided. And the worst of it the media does not really cover what he is doing, besides his bedtime nite by habits. You are very correct America is in Trouble. Keep in mind this is my opinion.OMG...I would pray and pray until you, God save America. I believe Trump will come again as the coast is now clear for him. Seriously, a puppet has no free will. (S)He's a robot. An AI is a better tool than Joe Biden because one can reasonably expect and intelligent answer from inputs. Not a puppet like JB. Prayerfully, God must save America from the hawks sorrounding JB.
Yep, he told Pelosi if they went to deliver the impeachment charge to the Senate secretary while the Senate was in recess, they would be sent away. So Pelosi waited. He also said there was no way he would call the Senate back just to impeach Trump.
The reasons why Mitch set a later date for trial. --- Fair play
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … rial-delay
"The Senate can declare anything to be constitutional with a simple majority vote. That does not make it so. " - In the case of impeachment where they have the sole power, yes, it certainly does.
Of course, by definition, jurisdiction is a technical issue. It had nothing to do with the facts of the case.
Are you questioning the House's sole power to impeach a sitting president? It sounds like you are.
Yes, you are quite right, the purpose of impeachment is to protect the nation from an evil official. Why are you claiming that is not what they were trying to do? Why do you think they pressed with the trial after he left office in the first place? I'll give you their answer - To prevent an obviously deranged man from ever attacking America again through his official office (ok, I embellished it a bit). There was no other purpose.
Now, because of the QOP Senators, he can, and probably will try to do it again. Since he now has the ability to run again, he will. And when he loses, he will unleash his violent supporters on America one more time, no question in my mind.
As to "pound of flesh" - America, not Congress, can now start trying to extract that by criminally prosecute him for insurrection, such as Georgia is looking to do and I hope DOJ will as well.I agree with every word you say. He was acquitted the first time for abusing his power to interfere in the election and then he did it again at a magnitude of a hundred times over. What will he and his fanatic cult do next time he loses?
You may find it obvious, or at least convenient, to declare that this impeachment (or the last one for that matter) was about protecting the country, but there are other opinions.
Given the extreme partisanship we see today in Congress, given the incessant attempts to remove the only strong political opponent the DNC has faced for 12 years, given 2 failed impeachment attempts and a failed witch hunt for collusion with Putin, given the attacks on everything Trump has accomplished (good OR bad), given the 100% partisan vote from Democrats in both impeachments, it is extremely naïve to think Democrats are doing anything to protect the country.
Instead they are doing everything they can to remove a lawfully elected official from the halls of the White House in order to install their own version. They are doing everything possible, even after seeing failure after failure, to protect and grow their party's power by eliminating an effective political opponent from the playing field.
It isn't about protecting America; it's about maintaining and growing the power of the Democrat party.I bet you won't feel the same if a socialist lying demagogue foments an angry mob to storm the Capitol and kill and main for their idol.
Oh, I would! I would!
But first you have to prove that that demagogue "foments an angry mob to storm the Capitol and kill and main for their idol.". It is that little bit that we differ on; I have seen nothing but twisted words and inconclusive assumptions that there was any effort to "foment an angry mob to storm the Capital and kill and maim" for Trump. Only by declaring that Trump's words don't mean what they say, while maintaining that the same words from other people do can you weasel an intent to instigate a riot. IMO that is insufficient proof; indeed it is not "proof" at all. Only opinion coming straight from a desire to remove the man from the political arena and nothing else.I simply do not believe you. You are partisan in the extreme. I have seen you argue that Trump cannot be claimed to be guilty of a crime because he has not been convicted of a crime after repeatedly declaring Hillary guilty of a crime even though she was never even charged much less convicted. And, no, I don't want to go down a rabbit hole; I am just using this as an example of how your position changes based on your partisan slant.
So, no, I don't believe you.That was proven - in spades. Even McConnell agreed it was proven.
"given the 100% partisan vote from Democrats in both impeachments, " - Now say some bad things about the 7 Republican Senators who voted to convict - are they Democratic partisans as well? (mainly because they voted against your hero?)
"given the incessant attempts to remove the only strong political opponent the DNC has faced for 12 years, " - IS Strength your only metric? It seems so. I find I have to add in:
- moral character (Trump has none),
- ethical character (Trump has none),
- truthfulness (Trump is rarely truthful),
- empathy (a nice to have that Trump doesn't),
- an ability to discern right from wrong (Trump has proven he can't),
- a respect for America (Trump doesn't, he uses America),
- a respect for well establish tradition (a hallmark of conservatism that Trump violates daily),
- and not being innately evil (which Trump clearly is).
So, yes, I find it obvious and those who have a different reading of the facts are partisan defenders of an evil man.
"Instead they are doing everything they can to remove a lawfully elected official from the halls of the White House in order to install their own version. " - THIS IS Proof you have bought into Trump's BIG LIE.
In 2020, Trump was not "lawfully elected - Biden was. Biden is who a large majority of Americans wanted to bring back America from the hell Trump put us in. Crazy Trump lost by a landslide (to use his definition).
It is all about protecting America from Trump and his supporters.ME, I've maintained all along that Trump was never a "lawfully elected president." He became president through Russian interference, and through an electoral college in which electors were not forced to vote the people's will. Remember Hillary won the popular vote by 3,000,000. Only in 2020 did the Supreme Court rule that electors shall follow the will of the people they represent, not their own consciences. However, his supporters were so happy that he was "in", nobody gave a crap. He was never a "duly elected" official. My former boss hated the phrase "duly elected" and said that all government officials were duly elected. Now I can tell him that he was wrong for having us remove it from some state bills.
I have never been able to go as far as to say Trump wasn't "lawfully" elected since the people did vote and the electors followed their vote. As it turns out, the Supreme Court surprising said that yes, the electors do have to follow the state laws - which flies in the face of what the founders intended, in my opinion.
What I do maintain is Trump's election was not legitimate - because of the Russians. It is, in my mind, well within the realm of probability that their targeted disinformation campaign (Trump learned well) was successful in changing the minds of such a small number of voters where Trump squeaked in.
I would call it legitimate if it were only the Comey episode which tipped the scales - mean stuff happens. But the Russian interference was no accident or bad judgement.
This is also one place where I disagree with Mueller. There was one case, based on his report, where actual conspiracy did occur and that was Paul Manafort. He clearly conspired with one of the Russian oligarchs and passed on polling data for the states where Trump barely won. Why Mueller chose not to add that to many other charges, I do not know, but, in my opinion, he should have.I have always viewed Trump as a legitimate president. Voters get swayed by false propaganda all the time. Russian interference is unacceptable and we must do our best to mitigate against it but there is no real way to measure its effects. We must view every citizen's vote, whether influenced by lies from Russia or lies from another candidate, as legitimate, as long as it is legally cast.
I understand you point. Don't agree with it, but understand it. From my point of view, given who persuasive propaganda is (which is why advertisers spend billions upon billions on it), I look at the Russian interference being no different than tampered ballots.
In my reasoning, what they did is much different than the political ads, even very negative ones, you see plastering the airways. Almost always, the viewer knows from whence they came and can made decisions based on that knowledge.
The Russian propaganda was hidden, subtle, subversive, targeted and those subjected to it had no opportunity to make an informed choice. Therefore, because Russia put an unfair foot on the scale, I can't consider any outcome that coincided with their intent to be legitimate. But, because the votes were cast and they were properly counted, that makes the election lawful, tainted yes, but lawful.
That's my reasoning anyway.
Oh gawdddd . . . MizBejabbers . . .
"I've maintained all along that Trump was never a "lawfully elected president."
Do you understand that you have placed yourself in the same camp as the Trump supporters that claim the election was stolen?
I admit that I was extremely surprised by your statement. I certainly don't think you have a leg to stand on in regards to criticizing the #stopthesteal folks.
Are you really one of those 'not my president' folks?
GA
Either Mitch McConnell negated your argument about technicality or he is dead wrong. He said he voted for acquittal on a technicality. Then he launched into a tirade against Trump (to my shock) echoing the very accusations the impeachment managers made, which appeared to be an obvious open door for somebody to file a criminal lawsuit against Trump. Either way, voting to acquit and then the nasty tirade sounds hypocritical to me. Has McConnell lost his mind?
Ever since he decided to bow at the kings feet.
Just follow his history, you chose the right word to describe Mitch he is a hypocrite. Always has been, goes whatever way the wind blows He is a dyed in the wool politician.
Now THAT is something you said I whole-heartedly agree with.
We will soon see a new Republican party emerge. Many of us are done with politicking low lives that care about one thing keeping their butts in Washington. Time to clean house on the old and bring in the new. Hopefully, Mitch will be the first to be voted out, he needs to go back to his "Old Kentucky Home" and stay there. He has never done a thing for Kentucky, and the people are waking up to that fact --- Finally.
I missed that McConnel also called the constitutionality issue a "technicality". Even so, I don't think it is a technicality I think it is an integral part of the argument. Otherwise, I agree with what I heard of McConnel's statement. I too think Trump is guilty as charged, but I think the Senate lacks constitutional authority to hold the trial against a non-office sitter.
It might not seem right or fair, but that is how I see the rules.
GAHow does it relate to the Facts of the case? Where does it speak to innocence or guilt?
It doesn't speak to guilt or innocence, it speaks to the juror's view of the legitimacy of the process.
GAWhich, by definition, is a technicality isn't it?
A case was dismissed because the defendant was not read their Miranda Rights.
That is, in my view, a technicality and has nothing to do with the facts of the case. I don't see a ruling on the constitutionality of the process as being any different.I do see it as different. I see it as fundamental to the process of the trial, not a technicality of detail of the trial. So we just disagree.
GAI thought about your argument and can see your angle. I just have trouble with them making that determination about Constitutionality as that is the role of the courts. The Senate as a body, determines laws, the courts rule on the Constitutionality of those laws. How often do Senators vote on something, then the minority in a vote tells their constituents that they do not need to follow the law they just voted in?
I think you are comparing two different obligations. Following a law as a citizen and following your conscience as a juror. The courts do have a part to play in the first, but not the second.
GASo why does the judge explain the relevant laws to the jurors before a trial starts?
When discussing this, the OJ Simpson trial comes to mind when the defense nullified the jury,
The same thought occurred to me early on, but I dismissed it. The OJ example is about jury nullification. I think the Senate trial is about disagreement.
GAStill disagree. Those 43 Senators (or whatever number actually though Trump guilty) who hung their hat on their independent judgement the trial was unconstitutional nullified the legal Senate vote to the contrary.
It appears you are equating a determined effort to ignore the law, (nullification), with a disagreement with the law.
You got me. In your mind it appears a fair comparison, in my mind, it is apples and oranges. Even though I strongly disagree with such a comparison, I have no desire to try to explain why I think you are wrong.
GA
I still think you are mixing different concepts. However, I think it would be possible for a juror to understand the definition of a law but disagree with its application and render a verdict reflecting such. I think such decisions of conscience are exactly the purpose of a juror.
GA
Is always unsettled even if only one person disagrees?
It can't be settled by a court of law because they have no authority here. Only the Senate can settle it because the have the "sole" power to try and convict (or not). They make the rules and they, and all previous Senates who have voted on the matter, said it was Constitutional.
So what we are left with is with the vast majority of constitutional scholars, saying you can try and convict a President, Vice President, or civil officer once they leave office. It has been done many times in American history.
But what happened here is Mitch McConnel, et al, gave all people covered by the impeachment clause a, what Raskin called, January exception. And it really isn't just "January" is it. Now ANY civil officer can commit ANY crime and Congress's hands are now tied so long as that official leaves office before they are convicted.
That is why I said earlier, we have no need of an impeachment clause anymore, it no longer has any teeth to it. SAD.
As to what happens next is Trump is currently facing three criminal investigations and one civil.
I suspect there will be a slew of civil suits by anybody who was injured (mentally or physically), or sustained damage of some, or the family of those who died as a result of the insurgents Trump sent to the Capitol. Much, much lower bar to prove he was the cause.
I am pretty certain DOJ will open an investigation. I am less certain if it will proceed to an indictment. Personally, I think the evidence is there, but ..."Much, much lower bar to prove he was the cause."
The bar in a civil case is "by preponderance of the evidence". How can that possibly be lower than "by the will of the ruling political party"?
Effective, isn't it? Merely show that everyone else does the same thing on a daily basis and you can too.
Like we all note, your ignorance of the actual facts of the case is ridiculous.
What do you he did that no one else has done?
Plan a political rally?
Exhort followers to "fight"?
Tell a group to march, on Congress or elsewhere?
Tell his followers to speak peacefully to their congressman?
Require an examination of an election?
What did he do that was different?Plan a political rally?
Ignorance of when he planned that rally. Never in the history of our country has the losing candidate planned a political rally on the day of the certification of results by Congress.
Exhort followers to 'fight'/Tell a group to march, on Congress or elsewhere?
Ignorance of when he told them to fight/march on Congress. Never in the history of our country has a losing candidate told his followers to march on the Capitol at the exact moment that Congress was set to certify the votes for his own loss, thereby ending the tradition of the peaceful transfer of power.
Tell his followers to speak peacefully to their congressman?
Ignorance to the months of fomenting anger based on lies about the 2020 election. As the President of the United States, his base is made up of numerous members of armed militias. If he doesn't understand this fact, he is too inept to hold the office any way. He used peacefully one time, and fight 20 times in his January 6 speech. Telling armed militias to fight, with the amount of reports of violence a true commander-in-chief should have been receiving is either incitement or idiocy. Either way, that's not someone that is qualified to hold the highest office of the land.
Require an examination of an election?
Ignorance of the difference between examining and running a full-on media campaign trying to sell a lie that he ended exactly one day before January 6. How many court decisions did Trump accept? Zero. When told by election officials, the DOJ and the FBI that there was no fraud, did he accept those statements as fact? Unlike any other President, he did not and kept propagating his 'Big Lie' that the election was stolen, rigged, and fraudulent for months leading up to January 6.
I'm of the opinion that the ignorance it takes to set aside all those facts is astounding.Even more than this, Valeant "Exhort followers to 'fight'/Tell a group to march, on Congress or elsewhere?" - He exhorted very angry, armed followers who he spent months making that way and could easily see was the case. He was not talking to peaceful protestors like MLK did that day long ago. No, he was talking to an angry mob he purposefully assembled to reverse the outcome of a free and fair election.
Face it, Wilderness' total obedience to Trump blinds him to the truth. Under his definition, nobody could ever be found guilty of incitement. He can twist reality such that context can never apply, common sense is not ever allowed to operate, seeing and hearing with ones own eyes and ears is inadmissible. He is simply part of the Trump Tribe that finds insurrection ok.
Only in America would a defendant have enough sway over a jury to be a factor in the decision, let alone members of the jury plotting with the defense attorneys on how to present the best arguments.
But congratulations to Donald Trump on getting the most guilty votes in impeachment history. Another dubious negative record for his resume.A couple of writers here could use this article...
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/children … 00949.htmlThe cult keeps on trying to breach...
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/wom … 15270.htmlI went back and toned down my language a bit, where Hubpages would allow it. Going back, I asked some very specific questions, which I will repeat.
Do you see from the stats I provided you and understand that there were hundreds of peaceful protesters arrested during the unrest? Could Harris have been aiming to support this group of people that I just listed for you? Where in her post did she mention rioters?I gave a very careful opinion of the factual tweet/Facebook quote that Harris made. I several times offered the opinion she did not walk back the request she made. It would appear when negative rhetoric came up she would have walked back her statement. Which furthered my opinion that she supports the group she asked for donations for. I in no way made the claim there were not peaceful protesters in the Minn protest or any protest. I agreed that thugs come out at night... Indicating I agreed during the day most were peaceful. I kept to the subject of Harris's support for bailing out protesters that were arrested, I did proclaim I felt if one gets arrested they were not most likely peaceful. That was clearly my opinion of what precipitates one being arrested. I have a right to a logical opinion. I listed many that had been bailed out, that had very horrific rap sheets. I offered links and proof of the names I offered. I made mention it would have been prudent for KH to check out the organization she was supporting, would funds be used wisely, or to bail out true long-time criminals.
Now my opinion on did Harris actually know ultimately who she was bailing out. Perhaps not, I find a true politician, just out there trying for her 15 minutes wherever she can get it. I found her record in the senate unimpressive, as her work history. This is my opinion. I offered links to how I came about that opinion. I am not out to bash her, only offered my thoughts on her past history in regards to her work record. I stayed away from rumors or personal reports on her character. I don't care about her character, I care about job performance.
You chose and often do to get personal. I have thick skin and have good self-esteem, so not too much bothers me. But being called a racist bothers me. I also do not like anyone trying to put words into my mouth.
I also asked simple questions that could have put the conversation into perspective. They were not answered. I got a big old deflect. I try to deal with facts, and when I offer an opinion I offer some info on why I formed an opinion. I think it's very hard to communicate when we have such a wide divide in opinions. There is no middle ground, even when blatant facts are presented the wall goes up.
I try not to get personal, but I slip up, and I am not proud of that.
I don't like to get personal, it's hurtful, and I don't want to be hurtful. I had hoped over time we that post here could come to at best respect one another right to an opinion. Just not happening... Like I said vinegar and oil.If, in my own opinion, I find a comment crosses a line pertaining to racial stereotyping such as equating BLM protesters as criminals and rioters, I will certainly be speaking up. If having a statement you made called out as coming off as racism is going to offend you that badly, perhaps watch the inferences you try and create when it comes to issues regarding race.
The vast majority (93% according to one study) of the protests were peaceful surrounding social justice, and often times peaceful protesters still do get arrested as I noted with statistics. I do not consider them criminals because I read and researched about their arrests before commenting instead of making guesses and assumptions about the specifics.Oh, so the protest was not a BLM protest? News to me.
News to you is many of those arrested were BLM peaceful protesting who were arrested for simply protesting and some police didn't like it. Were some non-affiliated rioters arrested as well? Yes, a few were. But based on the stats Valeant offered, most were peaceful BLM protestors protesting another police murder of a black man.My issue was that Harris used the words protesters in her post, but that gets equated to criminals and those who chose to riot. Those two groups are significantly different as noted by the 93% of people who protested peacefully.
Now, if moderators find offense with people seeing racial issues in someone making assumptions that the 93% should be equated to the other 7% who are criminals and rioters, not much we'll be able to do there.Let me make this clear. I have no problem with anyone's opinion and will do the back and forth with the best of them. You got personal and accused me of being racist three times before I brought it up. You deleted your insults, and amitted to"cleaning up your words"... Hopefully, the moderator will alert you of the forum rules. I have alerted him to your posts. Perhaps he will let it slide. I am not all that sure how strict they are in enforcing the rules. I asked that they contact you, and advise you of the rules. You have inferred you will add comments to anyone you please. That's fine, If you insult me personally I will report it. You see, I have rights too... Hopefully, you will just have enough sense to pass my comments by. That's up to you. But I am done with the game. Insult/delete.
So you think that I should not be able to articulate when I find a statement to be one of a racist nature? That when someone makes an argument dealing with race and blanket stereotypes minorities as criminals, that that is acceptable in a public forum? I will go ahead and report the posts I found to be examples and perhaps we can both sit the forums out for a while.
You can articulate, add your opinion. I asked you to point out my racist statement. I blanket no entities. I made no mention of race or creed. I made no mention of BLM or MLK. Time for you to produce my racist statements. It was not me to bring up VP Harris to the conversation. I think it's time for you to produce my racist statement. I offer each link in order for you to review, as well as the moderator. I am very interested in seeing the statement that you found racist. I think I have the right to view it. Produce it. It must be pretty bad for you to refer to me as a racist three times. I have read each of my comments from the very beginning of this thread. And unlike you, I did not delete any. Maybe you should just learn to not insult anyone personally, and you would be good to go.
You want your statement that both myself and MyEso immediately called out, here it is:
'Are you kidding me she was asking for donations for the Minnesota riots?'
Your interpretation that Harris' post asking for assistance for protesters in matters of bail to immediately thinking that protesters equates to rioters - comes off as you thinking that all who support social justice are criminals. I definitely find that interpretation, when a white person sees the word protesters, in this case black live matters protesters, and interprets that to mean violent criminals as an issue pertaining to race.
Clearly, Harris was talking about the situation in Minnesota as I've noted with dates, hence BLM, so while you didn't mention them, you brought up her post which was a direct call to assist their protests.
Prior to you making that statement, I had brought up racial issues about the bail policy, which has clear racial and socioeconomic bias and which Harris has publicly spoken out against last year. So while you try and fabricate a motive about her, a minority, being in support of violent criminals, those who had actually researched her stances would have known that she was trying to fight the issue pertaining to bail reform.--- "You want your statement that both myself and MyEso immediately called out, here it is:
'Are you kidding me she was asking for donations for the Minnesota riots?'"
So, this is what prompted you to refer to me as a racist (and remove your derogatory insults, not being willing to stand behind your assumption that I am a racist... And I see you pulled MyEco into this problem. Actually, his question was yes bold, inappropriate, he was not personally insulting me. He put his thought out in a question. A question I could debate.
I have looked hard at this statement. I in no respect referred to KH race. I offered the quote KH made on Facebook as well as Twitter. As I see it KH asked for donations that would be used to bail out persons arrested in the Minn protest. I would assume as I would think most people would that if one was arrested they were breaking the law. Very simple... I never made any form of the claim that they were not some at these nightly protests that were there to protest peacefully. I never mentioned race or why these persons were protesting (you at this point are adding a variation to what was being discussed. My entire conversation was about KH and her support to bail out persons that were arrested at that protest. You felt it was peaceful during the day --- I agreed. I felt a lot of damage, and violence was the result. I offered stats of persons hurt, killed, and the enormous cost of damages that resulted. I offered names of many that the MMF along with their rap sheets that were bailed out by MMF. These were all facts. KH did promote the MMF, one can read into her statement of reasons, but as I stated several times, ultimately she supported an organization that bailed out people that had broke the law, and some had committed some very violent crimes in their past.
"Your interpretation that Harris' post asking for assistance for protesters in matters of bail to immediately thinking that protesters equates to rioters - comes off as you thinking that all who support social justice are criminals. I definitely find that interpretation, when a white person sees the word protesters, in this case black live matters protesters, and interprets that to mean violent criminals as an issue pertaining to race."
"I' is the keyword --- You interpret... This is a problem, you have no right to automatically interpret and condemn, and insult my opinion. At no time did I bring up BLM, the reasons for the protest. I simply pointed out a fact, of what KH did. I backed it up with actual evidence. I at no time delved into anything racial, I made no mention of Mr. Floyd. I was accused of being insensitive to his death...
In regards to "bail policies" you were deflecting as you did throughout the conversation, flailing to avoid the facts I provided. I was unwilling to go down that path, that is my right. I was not at all willing to talk about --"which has clear racial and socioeconomic bias". This subject deserves more time than I was willing to give. I did in no way fabricate or read into why KH made the move to support MMF. The only thing close to making an assumption on why she made the statement -- I believe I stated she may have been politicking. This was very simply an opinion. I also said I felt she stood behind her support due to never walking her support back after MMF was getting negative press.
You can spend time defending your comments until "the cows come home"... The thread provided the truth of what was said between us, minus what you deleted.
This is where I could get personal, come back at you with my opinion of your character. I won't, and I can't, because this forum has rules. I have learned the hard way (due to being banned) one must follow them.
I am more than willing to drop this here, but I will not if you continue to infer I am a racist. You could have called me many names, and they would have rolled off... But, I am drawing the line at being called a racist.
You are clearly in a corner, this thread provides all of the words I uttered. I stand behind every one of them."As I see it KH asked for donations that would be used to bail out persons arrested in the Minn protest." - YES, she did that.
She did not, as you had previously said "As I see it KH asked for donations that would be used to bail out persons arrested in the Minn RIOTS."
To us, at least, there is a huge difference between "protests" and "riots". How come you can't see the distinction?
Further, you seem to miss the point that I tried to give you is that MMF is about helping those who can't afford bail in an unjust bail system.
Now personally, I think bail is needed. But I think the answer to the inequality is the opposite of what is proposed. I think that as your ability to pay goes up, so should the bail. So, it a person's annual income (or assets, which ever is higher) is say $10,000 and the bail is $1,000 ($100 to a bail bondsman), then the bail for someone whose annual income is $100,000, the bail should be $10,000 or to a person whose assets are $1,000,000,000 then the bail would be $100,000,000, if I did my math right."Further, you seem to miss the point that I tried to give you is that MMF is about helping those who can't afford bail in an unjust bail system."
I never disputed the purpose of their organization at all... Not sure where you would think I did. I pointed out a fact, they have bailed out many people that were protesting in Minn that had very bad criminal records. I added names and links to those facts. Not sure why those facts disturb you or you seem to feel I should not bring them up. The organization has been bailing out some really bad people. So, it sort of negates any good they may be doing IMO.
"Further, you seem to miss the point that I tried to give you is that MMF is about helping those who can't afford bail in an unjust bail system."
To put this bluntly I don't care what MMF is doing. I cared that they were bailing out criminals. I don't care about the injustice of the bail system, just not at all interested. I am more interested in keeping those that commit crimes off the streets. So, we can drop you deflect to discuss MMF. This headline concerns me ... "Minneapolis man bailed out by Minnesota Freedom Fund arrested less than a month later for another beating" https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/man … y-assault/
Again --- This statement where I said KH bailed out protesters from the Minn riot. This was my statement, my opinion. I never professed she said that. Hopefully, this clears that up. MY WORDS NOT HERS. I quoted her statement with her words and offered a link to provide a factual reference to her words. I chose the word riots, that's my opinion of what occurred that lead to the arrests. My opinion... You have a different opinion on who was arrested, that's your right. And I will live with mine.
I will opt out of discussing general problems with the bail system."Not sure where you would think I did. " - Because your comment [u]only[u] reported on the few who benefitted from their help who went on to do bad things. Without you providing context that you knew MMF did good things, what else is someone reading your comments to think?
It is not my "opinion" as to who was arrested. While yes, they did arrest many of the bad people, I saw with my own eyes on TV them arresting those who were obviously peaceful. Then you have the stats that have been provided. Then you have I think Pretty Panther's friends experienced who you challenged as a possible lie. Then you have Mask's personal experience he just related.
No, Sharlee, it is not "opinion" that innocent people were arrested, they were, it is fact. It is "opinion" that they were not.
My opinions of you have not changed at all. I simply tried to comply with site policies since you were clearly searching for reasons to run to mommy. And me mentioning MyEs is trying to help you understand that it's not only my opinion, but that multiple people felt you crossed a line with that post.
Now, you being ignorant to the racial event surrounding Harris' reason for her post does not excuse your mischaracterizations of both her stance and the protesters she was referencing.
And if this isn't the greatest example of revisionist history we've ever had at this site, I'm not sure what is:
'As I see it KH asked for donations that would be used to bail out persons arrested in the Minn protest.'
or
'My entire conversation was about KH and her support to bail out persons that were arrested at that protest.'
If that were at all true, we would not have had to call this statement out: 'Are you kidding me she was asking for donations for the Minnesota riots?'
I will always stand by my opinion that changing the word protesters in Harris' post to interpreting that as criminals and rioters was a clear case of racism. Which is exactly what was done.
You are right, this thread does have all the words you uttered. You being willing to stand behind them solidifies my opinion.I made a commitment to Hp to just stay away from your comments... I am hell-bent on keeping it. LOL Bye
What Sharlee appears to be saying, to make it perfectly clear, is if I said somebody was a black son-of-a-bitch, she would not have the right to call me a racist (and misogynistic) for saying such a disgusting thing. That is what I get out of her defense.
Even though what you guys are talking about is not anywhere as direct and blatant as that example, the same theory applies.But, what if the guy was black, and, he was a son-of-a-bitch, why would she call your statement racist or misogynistic if those two facts were true?
Would your thought hold if you said 'white son-of-a-bitch'? Still racist and misogynistic?
GAWell, let's see. He would be black because that is what I supposedly saw. i have no idea whether he was a son-of-a-bitch or not because I just saw him in the crowd with other protestors. It is calling him a black son-of-a-bitch (a racially tinged pejorative) that makes the statement racist.
As to misogynistic, the term "son-of-a-bitch" is, in my opinion and by definition, misogynic since a "bitch" is (when not talking about a female canine) a pejorative about women.
Now to "white son-of-a-bitch" being racists. You may possibly be right, on a technicality. At least one definition of racism is:
"prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
It is that word "typically" that buys you some wiggle room. Common understanding is the subject of the racial slur is a minority and in this nation, whites aren't the minority - yet.
What Sharlee is saying, I in no respect made any racist statement. And if I made a blatantly racist statement I would deserve being called out on it. I see the problem. As always some have a problem with context, they read in what they hope to see, to hear. I don't write in code. Not in any respect. ya can take my words literally, no hidden riddle, no she might be inferring this...No dog whistles. Just plain sentences that as a rule provide the true contexts to what I mean to share.
Did you hope to involve yourself in this problem? You certainly were in and out of the conversation. I am at this point thankful you were, due to your jumping in with your MLK comment. You pretty much came in feet first to back up Val's calling me a racist. I actually let it slide. However, your comment did in a roundabout way imply I may be a racist.
"News to you is many of those arrested were BLM peaceful protesting who were arrested for simply protesting and some police didn't like it."
Is that what multiple (you did say "many") arrest reports said? That they were arrested because the cop didn't like the protest? Or you just making that up because you either don't know why they were arrested or don't like the real reason?Can you even imagine anyone believing the police just arrested people to arrest them? It seems one only needs to watch the carbage that was occurring in Minn, in Portland, in Kenosha. The police took beat downs every night, all kinds of things toss at them, so many injured. Can you really imagine arresting peaceful protesters. I am sure some may have been caught up in the arrests but few and far between.
"Can you even imagine anyone believing the police just arrested people to arrest them? " - Where did I say that??? But I will if you make the arrestee black - it happens a lot. I know you don't want to believe it is true but there is a reason why most black parents teach try to teach their kids the proper way to act around a police officer in order to stay alive or not get arrested for having done nothing.
There is a reason why the terms "driving while black", "jogging while black", "walking while black" are such popular truism, especial in rural areas and most Red states. The fact is, it is just plain dangerous to be black in America, especially after Trump took office.
The stats from Valeant said that the ratio of riots to peaceful protests was 93-7.
Don't you find this rather suspect? Given that Portland saw 100 nights of rioting it would mean that there were 1300+ peaceful protests to counterbalance just the experience of that single city last summer. Portland was just one city out of dozens (hundreds?) that saw riots - I don't believe there were thousands of "peaceful protests" to offset them (unless you count a "protest" by half a dozen protestors).
Something is amiss in that figure. Perhaps they use a different definition of "violent" than I do, perhaps they cherry picked which protests to count, but whatever I do not believe the ratio.The source did use 10,600 demonstrations from May 24 to August 22, with 7,750 of those linked to BLM. 2,440 different locations held social justice protests across the 50 states.
And I'm glad you brought up Portland because “Although federal authorities were purportedly deployed to keep the peace, the move appears to have re-escalated tensions,” the authors wrote, in reference to demonstrations in Oregon.
“Prior to the deployment, over 83% of demonstrations in Oregon were non-violent. Post-deployment, the percentage of violent demonstrations has risen from under 17% to over 42%, suggesting that the federal response has only aggravated unrest.”I can't see the study, but I still find it very questionable. Possible, but quite unlikely without some creative use of terminology and cherry picking.
They're saying 2 protests, per day, per state, over every day of that (approximately) 100 day period. Probably over half the states had only a half dozen protests during the period that included over 100 people; an almost sure way to get a peaceful protest, and very likely a legal one to boot.
If that is true, it means that half the states had a protest going on in at least 4 different locations...every day all summer long. Difficult for this rural resident in a state that, at most, had a half dozen protests anywhere in the state.
While possible, it does hit the "gut check" meter pretty hard. Or...is a picket line in front of a business a "protest"? A single man decrying abortion as he walks down the street? Were only protests that went through City Hall for permission counted? There are too many ways for that figure to be "manufactured" for me to be comfortable with a number that sounds completely out of line.
Portland: While it sounds great to blame the feds (meaning Trump) for the escalation, it doesn't work. It should not come as a surprise that rioters get more violent, and can attract more violent people, when they have a "cause" to scream about. And they had a cause; the Feds were not allowing them the destruction they wanted. Don't blame law enforcement for enforcing the law, and don't blame them when criminals commit crimes. Don't swallow the idea that crimes would not be committed if only there were no police.
It is my opinion that any official in the state of Oregon, or the city of Portland, that had a hand in allowing the massive wave of criminality and destruction to continue past a day or two should be fired, never to work in such a capacity again. If that takes the 82 Airborne to drop in with tanks and machine guns then so be it. We should never, for any reason, allow our cities and our people to be subjected to such a thing. Certainly "But it will make the rioters mad" is not a reason!
(Perhaps I exaggerate a bit there, but only a bit. What happened to those cities is unconscionable and unforgivable.)It's certainly valid to question the study I referred to. Here is what happened in my own state, tons of small towns on there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fl … _New_York_(state)
As a very liberal person and supporter of social justice, I actually completely agree that once rioting begins at night, there needs to be a military presence to protect businesses. It's not an overreaction to enforce laws and if local police need assistance, it should be provided, and those wanting to destroy cities should be held to account.What happened to the Capitol was even more unconscionable and unforgivable and ALL, including Trump, Giuliani, Don Jr., and any representative who helped need to be prosecuted.
Valeant, for it to count with this crowd, 110% need to be peaceful.
Widerness, Your math doesn't pertain to Valeant's ratio statement of 93% peaceful. Protests vary in size from location to location and unless you have some blanket data to confirm the total of all protestors in every location you have no evidence to equate from. In math we call that "no problem, no answer."
You do, however, propose a reasonable example by tossing in the singular protests in Portland, a case study which is relatively easy to equate due to actual estimated data. There were 8000 people on the first night of the Portland protests. After that they dwindled in size over your 100 days with a verifiable estimate of 1000 people per night. This according to Portland authorities. That's 108,000 protestors in your 100 days.
Do the math the easy way. 108,000 x .07 equals 7,560 or 7%. That means that Valeant was being kind but correct in his statement. There is ample evidence of his statement online. To date 09/04/2020 Portland police have arrested 781 people in regard to those protests. A far cry from the 7% figure.
Sorry but it's always a good idea to check the boat for leaks before you float it.
Sincerely,
The Masked Marauder.And that assumes all 781 people arrested were rioters and not peaceful protestors. Any data on how many of the 781 were arrested for violent crimes?
Below is a sample. In the time period they looked at, there were 74 federal arrests in Portland. Of those 11 were tickets (15%), 42 were misdemeanors (57%). That means only 23 (28%) were felonies. Now, I would argue that it reasonable to assume that the feds would be arresting the more violent offenders. So what does that say about the criminality of all of those that the city and state police arrested?
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/05/90924564 … sdemeanorsYou would be correct, and I would not have commented, had Valeant said that 93% of protesters were peaceful. But he didn't; he said "The vast majority (93% according to one study) of the protests were peaceful surrounding social justice...". Not "protesters", but "protests". That protest might be 5 people, it might be 10,000 people but it is still a single protest.
I do agree that the vast majority of protesters are peaceful, at least if you ignore refusing to follow the law or instructions from police. Frankly, I would have put the number higher than 93% if "peaceful" means there was no property damage or personal injury. But, again, that is not what Valeant said.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175679
Senate body, acting as judge in determining the rules of the trial: Vote 55-45 that trying a private citizen is constitutional.
Senators, as jurors: individually vote to ignore the judge's directive and say that trying a private citizen is unconstitutional.
That's the argument?Good point you just made "Senate body, acting as judge in determining the rules of the trial:
Just watched the final 10 minutes or so of Biden's CNN town hall. Boy, what a breath of fresh air. There was a REAL President and a REAL man, not that fake and weak bully we had for the last four years.
And you really so no issue that it could undermine either the Senate or the courts?
ValAs it applies to this issue of a Senate impeachment trial I do not see it as undermining the Senate. The required majority could not be reached.
GA
Inspite of all the talks, actions, riots, protests, impeachment, Trump has sail over all the rough water! But one silent thing I've noted during the riots and arsons was that the dems governors specific and representatives did not raise a voice against the killings and the burnings. I ask questions and the awful answers I received was that the Dems states must need to be burnt down and blamed and then Trump held accountable. Those with such mindsets are the real enemies of the USA. Shame on them. Had I a woman, I would laugh and spite on them. Trump will come again as President.
Actually they did - a lot. Maybe you were just blind or are a terrorist Qanon type.
The " dems governors specific and representatives " condemnations were all over the MSM, just not the RWM (right-wing media)
Personally, as I stated somewhat in my previous post to Wilderness, I'm really sick to death of hearing blanket terms like left or right wing. If you think you are a liberal or conservative, fine and dandy. Those two words define specific standings (or used to) related to political parties and age old platforms that have been in place for a very long time. Abortion would be a classic example.
But when you throw around left or right you are blanketing both liberals and conservatives as all being the same on either side. This is wrong. It splits the population into only two camps which is exactly what the government in general wants because we are stuck in a two party system.
It's unfortunate moderate or more conservative liberals (yes they do exist) along with their counterparts are simply lumped into the category of left wing or right wing. You are no longer and individual but become just a face in a faction.
It's even more unfortunate that the governments efforts to keep it that way have culminated into two camps who now despise each other all because they have been labeled Left and Right.
Also, i would like to question the veracity of Sharlee01 and Wilderness opinion of the Floyd and BLM protests. Especially in regard to the arrest of peaceful protestors and/or protests. Here is my question.
Have either of you ever been involved in a mass protest. I'm talking a thousand people or more? I'm talking a massive amount of law enforcement and/or National Guard troops? I'm talking a tinderbox just waiting for a spark to ignite the flames of passion? Sh*t Happens. Especially in these situations and I know because I've been there.
I saw innocent protestors in a crowd tear gassed because of the mere threat of a crowd outnumbering police. I saw innocent protestors lying limp in passive resistance beaten, arrested, jailed and charged.
It's like my old Dad used to say: "Talk is cheap but it takes money to buy Whiskey".
Sincerely,
The Masked MarauderCorrection, Sharlee "I simply pointed out the Harris support MMF and asked for donations to bail out [u]rioters[/b] that were arrested in the Minn protest. A big difference in meaning.
"Have either of you ever been involved in a mass protest. I'm talking a thousand people or more?"
No. But I have almost no idea of why or where your question comes from; can you be a little clearer on that?
Are you asking if I think it's smart to be in the middle of a riot? That would be "No". Are you asking if I think it's OK to riot? That, too, would be "No". Are you asking if I think a reasonable response to riots is for police to back away and watch it happen? Another "No".
What are you really asking?Now you are getting the classic Wilderness Obtuse treatment lol.
You're an enormous help, Eso - can YOU explain what is really being asked? This came out of the blue to me and I haven't a clue what the real topic or question is.
Of course I can but because you want to be so obtuse, what is the point?
OBTUSE -
1. - annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
2. - unwilling to try to understand
3 - Someone who is obtuse has difficulty understanding things, or makes no effort to understand them (I go with the underlined definition since my sense is you are quite capable of understanding)Hey, I am not sure how you were pulled into this messy conversation? Not sure how M&M came to feel I am of the opinion that there were not peaceful protesters along with those that rioted at the Minn protest.
I'm not either. I was following it, somewhat, and MM made the comment out of the blue as far as I could see.
This conversation is long with tons of deflects, name-calling, and out of the many words I have added to it... One sentence has become the topic. I am very much disgusted with the lack some have with being able to realize and respect others who have the right to an opinion. Hey, you would think at this point Myeso would see our opinions are very far apart..
Is it possible that the left end of the political spectrum is taking their cue from the latest impeachment fiasco and jumping on single words or sentences that they then spin out of recognition to put the speaker in the worst possible light? Perhaps they even feel an obligation to do so with anyone not sharing their pre-ordained conclusions?
It does seem like we're seeing more and more of that kind of behavior.It's more likely that we on the left have grown tired of fabricated narratives that drum up anger among of a group of idiots that are willing to violently attack their own country from within.
So, agree, although it gets harder and harder to placate this kind of behavior. I must ask, did you ever think we could have so many not able to respect FACTS but choose to select a bit of a sentence or two and twist it to something that does not in any respect reflect the context? It's a form of a psychological phenomenon. I will admit, I have never witnessed such stupidity, for lack of a better word.
What he said (even though I have been guilty of blanket labels without leaving room for variation, which I try to use far-Left and far-Right, but frequently don't)
"I saw innocent protestors in a crowd tear gassed because of the mere threat of a crowd outnumbering police. I saw innocent protestors lying limp in passive resistance beaten, arrested, jailed and charged." - You have seen this personally and I haven't. But I don't need to have experienced personally because I have seen it on mainstream television too many times to count. It is a shame right-wing (as far as I know, there is no gradation here) don't show this as well - I am sure that it would shock the hell out of those who deny that police arrest peaceful protestors.Hi Mask Marauder,
"Also, i would like to question the veracity of Sharlee01 and Wilderness opinion of the Floyd and BLM protests. Especially in regard to the arrest of peaceful protestors and/or protests. Here is my question."
I have been to a large peaceful protest at the Capitol Building in Michigan.
I am curious as to how you came to the opinion that I felt there were not peaceful protesters along with violent protests at the Minn protest?
I would be interested in how you came to your opinion that I did not think there were peaceful protesters at the Minn protest Did you have one of my comments you could direct me to where I would have given you that impression? Very curious about what I may have said to give you the opinion I felt only violent protesters were present at the Minn protest."I would be interested in how you came to your opinion that I did not think there were peaceful protesters at the Minn protest " - WHY? 1) Because you never said there were, you always referred to them as rioters, and 2) you insisted that only rioters were arrested,. So why would anyone think you thought there were peaceful protestors there?
Now you are standing in to answer M&M's inquiries. OMG...
Once again I made reference to the fact there were peaceful protesters at the Minn protest. In no respect did I bring up BLM or Mr. Floyd. I kept the subject of persons bailed out by MMF. I gave names links to many of the persons bailed out. I gave proof that many had very high bails set due to violent criminal records, and MMF saw fit to bail them out. You claim I never said there were peaceful protesters. I have added two links to where I did just that. I am very sure I could offer more. What I wish I could are the links I was out and out called a racist. But, those were quickly deleted after I responded to them. I am very much disgusted with your accusations. It is clear on this subject we disagree on why KH supported MMF, and what went down in the Minn protest. I have also offered you a link to some of the leftovers of that "peaceful protest". Over 500 million in damages, many injured, one death... These stats aided me in forming my opinion in regard to the protest. My opinion is my own and in my view. It was a riot, with many thugs that promoted violence, and were bailed out. . The peaceful protester that were there were well overshadow by the looters, and tose burning and, becoming violent toward the police. Which actually were told to stand down. . And they were being bailed out. by MMF, And KH asked for donations that went to bail them out.
Read my comments -- I certainly offered my opinion that there were peaceful protesters at the Minn protest --- Several times. You have a habit of selecting words that suit your argument. Hard to have a conversation with anyone that selects only words they want to see, and will not accept another's opinion. You may not like my opinion but that is your problem. I several times made an inference to there being peaceful protesters present at the Minn protest. I also feel the majority that was arrested were breaking the law. The final word on that. Ya don't like it --- too bad. And if we are passing out judgments so freely. I feel your opinion is badly flawed. So we have come to a big as--- wall.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175657
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175612
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175612
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4175598
Or will we continue to get those that omit important facts, such as dates, context about events pertaining to social justice and race, or political stances pertaining to the racial inequities of bail, so that they can continue to run their smear campaign against Vice President Harris and Black Lives Matter protesters.
Dear Sharlee01,
First, I'd like to say that I do respect your opinions. I find them well researched and honest as to the way you feel in your stance(s). Also, you know, I've never referred to you with a derogatory name. I'm a construction guy and if I'm upset enough to call someone a name that name is going to be preceded and followed by a string of expletives that would make Richard Nixon and George Carlin blush.
I know I can drip sarcasm mixed with humor that sometimes is a little overbearing as in my comment to Wilderness. I don't apologize for my posts because I'm as right as anybody else here in my opinions. As is Wilderness. Nuff said.
However, My Esoteric was correct in his statement that, in your case, I was referring to Protests not Protestors and your slight statement of violent protestors who riot. Thus my question to you about attending a large protest and while I appreciate the fact that you've been to ONE, I specifically stated a protest where passions were running at tinderbox level. As I said, I have and I think there's something you should you try to understand.
The Floyd protests and the Riots that occurred happened because of thirty years of mistreatment of poor, largely black communities by police and there are plenty in Minneapolis as there are across the country.
And then you have a police officer killing a black man while kneeling on his neck for 8 minutes and 32 seconds. Add to that the fact that there were well protected " small groups, dressed in black, carrying shields and wearing knee pads, they head toward the front lines of the protest. Helmets and gas masks protect and obscure their faces, and they carry bottles of milk to counteract tear gas and pepper spray. (credit to USA today). Believe it or not these bad actors have mostly been identified as Far Left Radical Antifa groups. These hardcore groups, like the Proud Boys and Patriots Prayer use the protest as cover to create chaos and violence ensues.
Then the police fire tear gas and use rubber bullets randomly on the crowd and a peaceful rebellion turns into a riot. As I said, things go south. I doubt you or many others have been involved in this level of rebellion. As an activist (current member the Sunrise Movement) I have. I was at Berkeley and the Rodney King L.A. riots in 1992. If you want irony, I happened to be supervising a low income HUD rehabilitation project at the time.
As I said, things go south. I doubt you or many others have been involved in this level of rebellion. So, as far as being "out of the blue", my comment and question were relative to the topic. Thank you for bearing with me. I've also been told I talk too much and am opiniated and they are right.
Respectfully, Your Forum Antagonist
The Masked MarauderSo pleased you shared a bit about yourself, as well as your true experience in regard to protests. I respect life experience and enjoy those that are willing to step up and share. I too am sarcastic I also have a big helping of self-righteousness, and a load of kick shoes off and fight. This conversation in regards to the Minn protest was long, with lots of twists and turns... I am fully aware of why the people hit the street after Mr. Floyd's death at the hands of the police. I can only imagine the anger, the hopelessness in perhaps feeling that justice would not be done. I certainly realize how protesters could be caught up in a moment of such fury, and that a peaceful protest could end up becoming a violent altercation. I can understand how many could be swept up and be arrested.
In my long conversation with Val, and Myeso, I shared those very sentiments I just shared with you. We differed in opinion when it came to who was being bailed out. You see, that's what the original subject was all about. I argued that MMF bailed out persons that bail was set very high due to having violent criminal records. Such as rape, murder, pedophilia, child abuse, spousal abuse, etc. I offered facts, links with some of the persons that fell into that category. Name, previous crimes that these persons committed. The point I was so badly trying to make through many pages of conversation was --- this organization should not have been bailing those that had committed previous violent crimes. I also pissed them off by making mention VP Harris solicited the fund for MMF. Again I provided a resource with her quote.
In my opinion, there is a difference between protesters that found themselves behind bars for protesting, and in some fashion broke the law. Yes, I distinguished between the two. We had several types of protesters at that protest. And this is my true opinion. On at least three occasions I made mention that I felt there was a peaceful protester at that Minn protest. In no respect do I feel they were all peaceful.
I think it's obvious I am a conservative and come to my conclusions trusting my common sense and using my individual judgment.Me again --- I pondered a bit on your comment. I think sometimes it's good to stand back and look deeper into what was said, and how it was presented. I must say first, I like that you join into a conversation, you were straightforward, and offers a bit about how you come to your opinion. You appeared to offer honesty while getting out your point. I appreciated that you did not belittle my opinion or me personally as some do here. It appears we have something in common, we use our own form of common sense while forming an opinion.
I hope you have a chance to look over the entire conversation, a lot of what I said has been twisted into something other than what my words portrayed. I slowly have come to know the personalities of those on the forum, and yes It appears you may be liberal. I don't have a liberal bone in my body... However, I think, hopefully, we can see beyond all the right and left of it. And I must say, you jumped into a brawl and walked away without getting clocked with a beer bottle ...
Shar
Here is an issue I have with the narrative that was proposed:
'Have a look at a few she got back out on the streets. She (referring to Harris) is a radical dangerous human being.'
This was a clear accusation that Harris was responsible for where bail funds went, which was a false claim. And then a smear was added for good measure. Harris specifically asked for help for protesters in her social media posts.
Now, to add some context that the initial accusation left out - in the weeks after protesters had been bailed out, the following had happened:
1.) The MFF had raised $31 million.
2.) Right-wing media, the NY Post specifically, began to criticize the MFF for not spending more funds on bail initiatives as many protesters were ticketed with misdemeanors and released within weeks of the protests.
3.) With limited options on who to provide their vast resources on, they provided bail for those more violent elements that were listed. The dates that bail was given were either purposely left out to make it appear that they were near in time to Harris' social media post, or there was not research done to understand that there was a significant time gap between the protests and the need for MFF to spend their resources where they elected to bail out more of the violent criminals.
Since making those choices and being criticized by law enforcement and right-wing media, the MFF has decided to add an advisory board to determine if some of those charged should not be granted bail relief from their organization.
Now, there are many additional points to note that were left out when trying to falsely lay blame on Harris:
1.) First, the innocent until proven guilty standard in America. Charged is not guilty.
2.) Next, bail is an exchange to ensure that those charged show up for trial. If judges truly feel that those charged should not be on the streets, they can deny bail. That did not happen in any of these cases. Where is the culpability for the judges that made that determination?
3.) Lastly, if those that were charged were wealthy, they would have been back on the streets as well. Would this have been an issue to the right-wing if those charged had not needed to receive assistance from MFF? In essence, the right is arguing that they are fine with rich violent criminals being back on the streets, just not the poor ones that might need financial help. A case for discrimination based on socioeconomics could be made.
Harris is not pro-violent criminal or pro-rioter as was the clear intent to paint her as such in this thread. She has spoken about and believes the bail system discriminates both racially and socioeconomically and that those protesting for social justice should not be stuck in jails during a pandemic, where the transmission rates are very high.
Related Discussions
- 126
Impeachment Dem's Going For A Doubleheader...
by Sharlee 4 years ago
So far it is obvious President Donald Trump is extremely unlikely to resign in the final few days of his presidency. And VP Pence is equally unlikely to force him out by invoking the 25th amendment of the Constitution, despite calls from the Democrats to do so.So, in the wake of last week’s...
- 50
The next 13 days - What will Trump do next?
by PrettyPanther 4 years ago
Personally, I think yesterday's events were entirely predictable and the logical progression of a lying con man telling his supporters, day in and day out, over the course of several years, that everyone who is not for him is an enemy of the United States. The angry mob is directly the result...
- 35
Buzzfeed Reports... Donald Trump Obstructs Justice
by Allen Donald 6 years ago
Okay, Trump supporters, this report from Buzzfeed, if true, would appear to be the end of the Trump presidency.Buzzfeed is reporting that Donald Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about the Moscow Tower Trump project and wanted to go to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin personally to...
- 5162
The Impeachment of Donald Trump!
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
Today, September 24, 2019, for only the third time in American history, the Speaker of the House announced a formal impeachment inquiry into the actions of a President of the United States - Donald Trump. (Nixon would have been the fourth, but he resigned before it was over.)- Johnson's...
- 23
The non-impeachment of President Trump
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
Throughout the last three years, we've seen political maneuvering like never before - the Democrats have spent the entire time trying to undo an election, find a crime where one didn't exist, slander and demonize the President, go after anyone who was associated with the Trump campaign or...
- 48
Can Liberals and Conservatives Ever Work With Each Other?
by Scott Belford 8 years ago
I'll let you answer that but provide this insight from a recent CNN poll. Q16. If you had to choose, would you rather see Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress mostlyimplement Republican policies and pay little attention to the positions taken by the Democraticleaders in Congress, or...