Can Donald Trump be Tried as a Terrorist?
Personally, I think he can.
The definition of a terrorist is "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.". Clearly, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and al Qaeda and the Taliban fit that definition. But does Trump?
You might say that Trump has never personally physically harmed anybody to further his political agenda, but neither did (as far as I know) Osama bin Laden. Yet everybody thinks bin Laden is a terrorist. Why? Because he led and directed those that did.
How is Trump any different than bin Laden in that regard? Consider:
1. He used violent rhetoric throughout his candidacy and presidency to stir up supporter to violence - often successfully as many who were on the receiving end of his supporters assaults have testified (including the Capitol Police)
2. He created the Big Lie about not losing the election for his followers to rally around
3. He frequently suggested that TAKE ACTION which resulted in assaults on several government agencies that culminated in the January 6 insurrection against America
4. In a call to arms, he gathered them in one place with the sole intent of marching on the Capitol.
5. He exhorted them to march on the Capitol and STOP Congress from doing its Constitutional duty
6. When they did what he wanted, he did nothing to stop the violence he instigated until he knew it was way too late.
7. In his rhetoric and actions, he provided material support to known domestic terrorist organizations such as the Proud Boys and Qanon.
So I ask you - How Can Trump Not Be Considered a Terrorist Leader?Probably by recognizing that your points 1 through 7 are all false, with nothing but exaggeration and spin behind any of them.
You know as well as I do, everyone of them is true and can be proven (and hopefully will be by DOJ)
For sure. In his "call to arms" (that he never made) he incited an insurrection...by people with no intel (they didn't even know the floorplan and no idea where their supposed victims were), had no equipment (barely managed to break through glass doors) and roamed the building taking selfies of themselves hanging from wall ornaments and sitting in the chair of the rich and powerful. A real serious attempt to take over the government, right?
So...no call to arms, no actual insurrection, no encouragement. Just another ordinary riot as we saw for months in liberal cities all over the country. The only difference in this one was that it scared the lawmakers by happening on their turf rather than that of a 60 year old woman operating her tiny store in Portland, Seattle or some other left wing city.
Same old crap for centuries , just worst with Biden.
How so? You think Joe Biden is more of a criminal than Trump, lol? Based on what?
US in general has the worst war and criminals rap sheet anyways. Politicians are a waste of time and energy.
Trump tried to slow down the monetary currency collapse and the covid
BIDEN COVID 19!!!and his spending more than wars combined.
Crime has skyrocketing too. Many store chains are closing because theft is causing too great of lost to stay open.
By the end of 2020, Chicago police reported more than 750 murders, a jump of more than 50% compared with 2019. By mid-December, Los Angeles saw a 30% increase over the previous year with 322 homicides. There were 437 homicides in New York City by Dec. 20, nearly 40% more than the previous. This is the stuff that always made headlines. Now covid is blamed for gang shooting drive.
More human and constitutional rights violations broken I've ever seen in my lifetime. Violence riots I've not seen since the 60s and 70s. Leftism nationism and wokeness unforgiving. Don't get started on vaccines.
The story continues...
My --- you need to move on. Nothing you have listed is factual.
I suggest you don't hold your breath waiting for Trump to be arrested for anything.Actually, EVERYTHING I said was factual. And no true patriot can move on when somebody is threatening American democracy like Trump is.
Two latest developments:
1. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn (Ret) said yesterday that a Myanmar-style military coup should happen in America.
2. Trump says he will be reinstated as president by August (Two latest developments: (https://www.rawstory.com/trump-reinstated-president/)
Regarding Flynn's calling for a coup, it happened this way at a QAnon event where he was speaking. A Marine in the audience asked him [i]"I want to know why what happened in Minamar (sic) can't happen here?"[/] To this, Flynn replied "No reason, I mean, it should happen here. No reason. That's right," Now THAT is pretty clear, isn't it?
As a side note, I learned today that retired military are still subject to the UCMJ - which means Lt. Gen. Flynn can still be courts-marshalled!!! Already a congresswoman and a former White House ethics lawyer is calling for just that.
As to Trump, since he is still pushing the Big Lie and agitating for his storm troopers to come to his aide again and now with Flynn calling for a military coup, I can see why Trump thinks he will be reinstated.OMG, Eso - "rawstory" is what you use to get your dirt on Trump? I begin to understand your rants and false claims a lot better!
Hey, you use conservative Fake News. At least Raw Story presents real facts.
It turns out Trump's Chief of Staff, presumably at the micromanager's behest, pressured what is supposed to be in an honest world an independent DOJ to investigate the baseless conspiracy theories that is now known as the RINO BIG LIE about the election results. Well, DOJ did investigate and they found the Big Lie was just that, a Big Lie - Trump lost fair and square.
But then facts do not have a place in RINO world and they and Trump push on destroying our way of life in America. It absolutely amazes me how many so-called Americans want to live in a Russian-like society where truth does not matter - just what the dictator says.
SAD
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/05/politics … index.htmlTrump continues his assault on the TRUTH and DEMOCRACY in his speech to RINOs in North Carolina. While these particular lies do not rise to the level of terrorism yet, they are the precursor to the destruction of American democracy.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/06/politics … index.html
It starts out "Donald Trump's speech before the North Carolina Republican Party Saturday night was a reminder of the danger the former President poses as he undermines America's election system while attempting to reassert himself as kingmaker on the national stage."Must admit I did not listen to the speech Trump gave last night. I am too busy keeping up with the news of today. The new administration gets my attention at this point.
Following what Trump said or might do in the future is on the back burner. It the new administration that is more important at this point.WOW! Now we learn that Donald Trump, shortly after his WH counsel Don McGann told him to take a hike when Trump asked him to Obstruct Justice and then Lie about it, had McGann and his wife spied on.
And this is what Trump supporters think America should be like - a Russian state. SAD!
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/13/politics … index.html
I have to ask Trump supporters again - What is the difference between Trump, Putin, Xi, Un, Assad, Erdogan, Maduro, and Ali Khamenei?
I really don't see one myself.
Liz Cheney is another Real Republican (although not a Lincoln Republican) who thinks Trump is a terrorists (what she accuses him of fits the definition).
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/06/politics … index.htmlOnly impressions President I was ever impress and inspired me was JFK. Maybe a part of Jimmy Carter as an honest and good person. Much of the rest, were a humanitarian waste of time.
Liz Cheney was removed from House GOP leadership due to lots of rhetoric or should I say statements that have not been proven. I don't think she ever called him and as you put it "terrorist. The conference made their voices heard a majority voted her out of her position. It well appears the majority of Republicans have will support Trump.
She had the right to speak her mind, as those that voted her out had the right to have their voices heard."Liz Cheney was removed from House GOP leadership due to " - Telling the Truth.
I didn't say she did, but as I said parenthetically, what she has described in many different ways fits the definition of a terrorist - "causing harm for political ends"
I must agree that "It well appears the majority of Republicans have will support Trump." when applied to elected Republicans. It is probably true of ones that will vote". Fortunately, there is a large and growing segment of Republicans who reject Trump. It was enough to give Trump an embarrassingly large loss. And, I have to believe there have been a significant number of additional defections in response to the Trump-led insurrection on January 6th.
And yes, they all have those rights, but it just shows you how brainwashed/corrupt/hypocritical (those that voted her out after keeping her in) they are.
It makes me remember that the majority of Jim Jones followers supported Jim Jones (until they died).Again, I don't think she ever called him and as you put it "terrorist. Not sure why you made that claim.
"Liz Cheney was removed from House GOP leadership due to " - Telling the Truth."
Perhaps your truth, as well as her truth. However, she has offered nothing but opinion that lacks facts. As I said she has a right to her opinion.
I would think Trump would certainly do very well if he ran in 2024. I think it depends on the shape of the country is in, and who he was running against. Four years is a long time... I certainly wish Trump did not lose and would have felt more comfortable having him in the White House. In my view, this administration is chaotic, and ineffective at problem-solving.
I think with Manchin and a few other Moderate Dems ready to help us, Republicans out, we will be able to minimize the Bidens socialist agenda. I am feeling a bit more encouraged at this point. Plus, I truly have faith that many Biden voters already have buyer's remorse.
And then there is the Border mess, and President Alejandro Giammattei of Guatemala blaming Biden for inviting his citizens to make their way to America, and Biden's foolish move to do away with Trump's immigration policies. The President of Mexico some months ago offered the same opinion.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/07/gu … te-change/
https://cis.org/Arthur/Mexicos-Presiden … urge-Biden
Harris was met with a large crowd of a protester with signs -- Go Home -- Trump won --Kamala, Mind Your Own Business.
https://nypost.com/2021/06/07/guatemala … trump-won/
With the new administration already appearing to be crashing quickly I would think many that voted for Joe are have big-time buyer's remorse. Actually, I can't keep up with the trail of. messes this bunch is leaving behind them.
WOW! First we find out that Trump, through Barr, attacked journalists by subpoenaing various records and keeping a gag order in place. Now we find out Trump further abused his power, through Barr, by subpoenaing records of Democrats who criticized him along with the families and a minor child. You should worry if you ever communicated with one of these people; Trump may have read what you said.
Tell me this isn't Russia.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/10/politics … index.htmlThe first paragraph in the article says it all --- "CNN)Prosecutors in the Trump administration Justice Department subpoenaed Apple for data from the accounts of House Intelligence Committee Democrats -- including Chairman Adam Schiff -- along with their staff and family members as part of a leak investigation, an Intelligence Committee official and a source familiar with the matter confirmed to CNN."
Not a night would go by when
Stilwell and Schiff were on nighttime media frequently saying things about Trump that were proven to be lies by the Mueller report. The IMO they are both slimy individuals.
Let me remind you the AG had every right to investigate anyone he felt he had reason to investigate. The AG certainly needed to find and prosecute anyone that was leaking information that by law should not have been leaked.
Not sure why you feel anyone is above being investigated. Many of the leaks appeared to come out of Schiff's committee, information that only committee members and their aids had."Let me remind you the AG had every right to investigate anyone he felt he had reason to investigate." and "Not sure why you feel anyone is above being investigated. " - I feel that way because I am a liberal and believe in personal freedom. I don't want to live in Russia or Iran or North Korea or China or ... where that is exactly how they do it and which you are clearly suggesting we do the same here.
"The AG certainly needed to find and prosecute anyone that was leaking information that by law should not have been leaked." - Yes he did - legally. Let me remind you that in America law enforcement can't investigate people for no reason at all, like you suggested the AG can do. They need probable cause. Just to pick an extreme example - what do you suppose their probable cause was when they had Apple turn over the records of some minor child family member?
This appears to be such an egregious violation of constitutionally protected right to privacy, that I hope they look very closely at the reasoning the use grand jury used to grant subpoenas for family and friends of Congress people and their staffs and the judge who granted the gag orders. This stinks to high heaven and heads need to roll.
Trump's spying on Congress will be the second greatest scandal in modern history (the first is Trump's insurrection). He always talked about the Republican sponsored investigation into him as a "witch hunt", which of course it was not. On the other this certainly was one,
While Trump's insurrection qualifies as a terrorist act, this probably doesn't. But it does parallel what his authoritarian friends do in Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, Venezuela, etc.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/11/politics … index.htmlThis opinion piece highlights why Trump needs to be held accountable for his terrorist activity.
70 to 80% of RINOs believe in Trump's Big Lie about the election even though Homeland Security, DOJ, and the judicial system found little fraud (and what was found was committed by Trump supporters so far). Homeland security declared the 2020 election to be the most secure ever. DOJ defied Trump's order to find fraud and declared the 2020 election fair and secure.
Here is the thing. So long as Trump and his surrogates can go around spreading the Big Lie the chances of him causing more political violence like the Jan 6 insurrection is high. And, according to DOJ and DHS, it is getting higher every day.
It behooves America, for its own safety, to bring Trump to the bar of justice so that he can pay for what he has done to America.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/12/opinions … index.htmlInteresting. The Trump of Israel, Netanyahu, just called Republicans who believe in term limits - fascists. This darling of the RINOs just turned on his American supporters (much like Trump often does) to show his gratitude for their years of support.
He said, referring to speculation that the new government would impose term limits or make it illegal for someone who has been indicted to be Prime Minister, "You call yourself the guardians of democracy, but you are so afraid of democracy that you are ready to pass fascist laws against my candidacy -- the language of North Korea and Iran -- in order to maintain your regime,"
I guess that means Netanyahu thinks our Constitution is fascist since it term limits the president.Interesting. The Trump of Israel, Netanyahu, just called Republicans who believe in term limits - fascists. He is the darling of RINOs, yet this is how he repays their fealty (just like Trump would, lol).
""You call yourself the guardians of democracy, but you are so afraid of democracy that you are ready to pass fascist laws against my candidacy -- the language of North Korea and Iran -- in order to maintain your regime," he [ said, referring to speculation that the new government would impose term limits or make it illegal for someone who has been indicted to be Prime Minister.Does it just make you sick to your stomach that 21 RINO House members saw fit to vote against awarding the Congressional Gold metal to the policemen who saved them from Trump's insurrectionists on Jan 6th? It does me.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5586 … capitol-onSpeaking of terrorism - here is a report about a Florida Republican congressional candidate, William Braddock, threatening to kill his Republican opponent, Anna Paulina Luna.
This isn't illegal why?
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/1 … uad-494976Not a lawyer, but I would hazard to guess that because it was not a public statement, because it was recorded "secretly" it is not illegal. How many people have threatened to kill someone if they don't do as demanded? Someone threatening their child or their spouse? An employee turned down for a raise/promotion? Someone getting arrested?
I could be way off base, though.Probably not off base. Further, he was telling somebody else that.
BTW, the "secretly" is state-based. In Florida, it appears to be illegal to have a one party record a conversation without the other knowing, Maryland too. In Virginia, I think it is perfectly fine.
Had Luna been an elected federal (don't know about state) official, however, it would have been illegal, but running for office probably doesn't count.
Here is a question - if somebody runs up to me and says they are going to kill me (and I believe them and they are capable), why couldn't they be arrested for assault? I think all that is required is that I be in fear of my life or being harmed.Yes, the "secretly" is state based; I know in my state of Idaho it is quite legal to record with only one party aware of it.
But that's not really what I meant; it just seems there is a vast difference between angrily telling a collegue "I'm going to kill so and so" and going public with the same statement. One is not a threat, it is just anger venting. The other, however, IS a threat and should be taken quite seriously.
Your question; I think the "stand your ground" laws could come into effect here. Not so much in arresting someone for threats (although that can sometimes be done, depending on the believability of the threat), but in your reaction. For instance, the threat to kill you, out of the blue and without backup evidence, isn't much of a threat. But if the person runs at you with a raised knife shouting in anger it becomes something else entirely.
Well, the RINOs blew their chance at being part of the solution, so now Pelosi is going to form a Republican-style Select Committee to investigate the origins of the insurrection on Jan 6th.
Finally, the truth will come out.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/22/politics … index.htmlGot to give it to Nancy, great slop to keep some busy lapping at it while following an investigation that will go nowhere, and keep their brains from overload with all the current problems that the Dems are drownding in. Wonder when Congress will get around to making an attempt to keep any of the promises old Joe made? This is getting sort of fun to watch.
Did you ever consider they want you to look one way for a reason? Maybe they just don't want you to you really see what is truly happening right before your eyes.
This administration is failing on all counts, and they are now grasping for anything to make an attempt to grab headlines to deflect.:"Wonder when Congress will get around to making an attempt to keep any of the promises old Joe made?" - You do know the RINOs will do everything in their power to stop any of Biden's initiatives to become law, don't you? That is why it is so important for Democrats to do well in 2022.
"This administration is failing on all counts, " - The opposite is true, save for those things the RINOs can stop such as giving everybody the right to vote.
I did see what happened right before my eyes. I saw and listened to Donald Trump lie to you and everybody else about the election, I read and heard him call his army to the Capitol, and I watched and listened to Trump inciting his army, and then I watched them conduct a violent insurrection where the Trump supporters attacked the police and maim them and were responsible for several of them dying.
What did you see? People acting normally, I suppose.
"making an attempt" - Seems like that is a false statement since the House has sent many pieces of legislation to the Senate only to watch McConnell and the other RINOs kill it, like they have for the last two years.
It seems to me you would get tired of the RINOs not governing.
"following an investigation that will go nowhere," - OH, it will go everywhere and you know it (and are afraid of I imagine, certainly Trump is). We will finally, in spite of RINOs burying their collective heads in the sand, will have documented why the insurrection happened. It will clearly connect the dots, with evidence, between Trump's and his minion's words and actions and the assault on the Capitol and our democratic government.
The TRUTH will come out."I read and heard him call his army to the Capitol, and I watched and listened to Trump inciting his army, and then I watched them conduct a violent insurrection"
Sorry, Eso, but you didn't see OR hear Trump inciting an army. Nor did you watch a "violent insurrection". You may try to spin it that way, you may try to use emotions to convince readers, you may try to repeat it enough times to cause belief in the gullible. But when all is said and done you did none of those things.Of course I watched and heard all of that - I watch and listen to the real news and not that propaganda you consume all of the time.
When I watch Trump supporters beat a policeman unconscious with flag poles and things they stole from other police, I perceive that as violence.
When I watch Trump supporters bear spray and beat a policeman who the next day mysteriously died of a stroke, I perceive that as violence.
When I watch Trump supporters break windows and invade the Capitol building, I perceive violence
When I watch the process of Congress stop because Trump supporters are trying to break into the their chambers to kill them, I perceive a violent insurrection.
You can keep you head in the sand until you suffocate, but the TRUTH is the TRUTH and your lies or brainwashed view of the world won't change that"I read and heard him call his army to the Capitol, and I watched and listened to Trump inciting his army, and then I watched them conduct a violent insurrection"
What call? What did Trump say to incite people to riot? "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech. " Cspan -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_A-jnovP-A
He talked about cheering on our Congress to do the right thing, he in no way asked for violence. The tone of his voice was in no way angry throughout the speech.
Funny in your comment you seem to sum up who was responsible for the violence --- "Trump supporters". Yet you support a Congressional committee to conduct an investigation. I would think it is very clear that some Trump supporters or some American citizens attacked the Capital. It would seem more than obvious why they attacked the Capitol. They were protesting the outcome of the election. That is actually a right. Not a right to become violent. What the hell could an investigation prove? It is clear the Capitol was attacked by American citizens that were not satisfied the election was fair. And they were willing to become violent to get their point across. You may not like the fact these people attacked the Capitol. But they did, and the bigger problem is we have people so dissatisfied with our Government that they would attack the Capitol. We have a true split, and people at this point willing to dig in and fight. That should be your concern, not who is at fault."It is clear the Capitol was attacked by American citizens that were not satisfied the election was fair."
Irrelevant and immaterial. Also not to be mentioned or discussed: what IS important is that the riot can be grossly exaggerated into an "insurrection intended to overthrow the American government". This can then be used to demonize a President that asked for a peaceful protest...if one simply ignores truth and fact and instead promotes a false report of why it all happened. All one has to do is assign motives into rioters that were never there at all.I respect your opinion in regard to the protest/riot and agree it was grossly over-exaggerated. There was actually very little damage other than chemical dust being found on art, and a couple of antique light fixtures broken. And yes overturned furniture. The facts are there for those that choose to look for them --- That's why I brought up a factual quote from Trump speech on Jan 6th --- "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,"
I also offered a link to check out those factual words, which also provides the quality of his tone when he made that very statement. His tone was actually very calm and pleasant. Facts are hard for some to digest.
He asked them to march peacefully to the Capitol.
As I said, what really bothers me and would seem a bigger problem, that we have people so dissatisfied with our Government that they would attack the Capitol. Again just my view. But it is clear this subject is not important to some. So many at this point are stuck in believing anything media feeds them, and have lost all ability to think for themselves. What is also interesting the media seems to keep them in the past, replaying all the Trump rhetoric over and over. So, it odd they can ignore all that is actually going on in the failing Biden administration. I wonder when the day of awakening will come? Gosh, we have a president that is drowning faster than any other in our time, yet crickets.
Many are out for a pound of flesh. And are willing to ignore facts. Many have taken on Biden's attitude, and opted to believe -- " truth over facts...""There was actually very little damage other than chemical dust being found on art, and a couple of antique light fixtures broken. And yes overturned furniture. " - Unbelievable!! The damage exceeded $30 million. Why are Trump supporters so intent on whitewashing what happened and taking the side of the terrorists?
Do you dislike the police so much that you won't even mention the hundreds that were seriously injured or where the riot led to their deaths?
The "crickets" are because Biden is doing a great job.Drop in the bucket compared to the damage done by BLM protests ---
However, the violence by early June 2020 had resulted in two deaths, 604 arrests, an estimated $550 million in property damage to 1,500 locations, making the Minneapolis–Saint Paul events alone the second-most destructive period of local unrest in United States history, after the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests
More Than 2,000 Officers Injured in Summer's Protests and Riots
https://www.policemag.com/585160/more-t … -and-riots"Drop in the bucket compared to the damage done by BLM protests ---" - LOL First, you stated it wrong and disingenuously. It should be "Drop in the bucket compared to the damage done by rioters at the BLM protests -- that is much more correct. One estimate that I saw was $2 billion.
But, as any economist knows, you can't compare the two numbers because the damage occurred over different periods of time - 4 hours at the insurrection and over 1000s of hours for the Summer riots.
One estimate says there were 10,600 demonstrations protesting the murder of George Floyd. They say 95% of them were peaceful or 530 were violent. Let's say each violent riot last 4 hours as well; that would be 2,120 hours of violence over the summer of 2020.
Doing the math you get the following:
Rate of Damage during the insurrection: $7.5 million per hour
Rate of Damage during the summer riots: $0.9 million per hour.
That is how economists measure things. Now, you want to tell me again about the relative level of damage?
You can apply the same method to analyze your mischaracterization of the number of officers injured.
During the insurrection, very roughly 35 officers an hour were injured
During the summer riots, using your number, very roughly 1 officer an hour was injured. Again, you seem to be trying to mislead the reader.How is it that you separate and differentiate the rioters at BLM protests but not at the Capital riot? Or do you agree that the large majority of the people there meant no real harm in their fun little game?
(I refuse to think you actually believe that ALL (or even a large majority) of the rioters at the Capital were out to murder legislators.)"I refuse to think you actually believe that ALL (or even a large majority) of the rioters at the Capital were out to murder legislators." - AGAIN, you make things up so you can argue.
Where have I ever said that?? There were over 10,000 people there peacefully protesting and NOT trying to get into the Capitol. BUT, there were over a thousand armed violent insurrectionists who wanted to, planned to, and did. And may I point out that thousand or so FAR, FAR exceed the number of actual rioters at any of the otherwise peaceful protests.If I made it up then you must believe that everyone at that riot was intent on murder. You can't have it both ways, Eso; either my statement that I refuse to think you believe that was reasonable or it was not. If not then you must believe it although I didn't think so.
A thousand armed "insurrectionists". The report I saw was that there was ONE gun found outside and none inside. You're now claiming that those rioters intended to overthrow the US government with baseball bats and fire extinguishers. That would make them even more foolish than those that claim that was the intent when they use the word "insurrection"."If I made it up then you must believe that everyone at that riot was intent on murder. " False statements like that is why nobody can trust what you say.
"A thousand armed "insurrectionists"." - How is it you think "armed" means only with a gun? "Armed" is the characterization the investigators are using. I can't find the quote of "thousands" yet, but it was in testimony that I read. I will report it when I find it.
But in the meantime, here is what "armed" actually means.
"Before and after the storming of the Capitol, NBC News reported, police seized a dozen firearms, including an assault rifle, and thousands of rounds of ammunition from seven people attending the rally for President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. Other weapons included a crossbow, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails."
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/capit … f-weapons/
"Police officers have a much different memory of that day. “I’ve talked to officers who have done two tours in Iraq who said this was scarier to them than their time in combat,” Robert J. Contee III, the acting chief of Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department, said "
https://www.witf.org/2021/03/19/yes-cap … they-used/
Then there is this from someone listening to Trump's speech.
"In front of me, a middle-aged man wearing a Trump flag as a cape told a young man standing beside him, “There’s gonna be a war.” His tone was resigned, as if he were at last embracing a truth that he had long resisted. “I’m ready to fight,” he said. The young man nodded. "
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021 … ectionistsFrom your llink: "Those weapons included baseball bats, chemical sprays, a captured police officer’s riot shield, a crowbar, fire extinguishers and a metal flagpole."
So...prepared and armed for an attempt to overthrow the government of the biggest military power on earth means having some baseball bats, pepper spray, a shield etc. And one gun; a pistol that was confiscated as the only weapon at this tremendous "insurrection".
Oh yes; a dozen rifles confiscated at a different time and a different place that you will nevertheless insist were at the "insurrection".
Sorry, Eso, but this kind of sensationalism, this kind of exaggeration and this kind of assumption has no place in any serious search for truth. It is only useful in emotional, sensationalistic arguments to demonize someone - in this case the target is Trump.
Now - you still haven't given a link showing Trump guiding, organizing, commanding or in any other manner having anything to do with that riot. Are you still claiming you heard him do it or are you ready to back off that stupid claim as a failed cause? A lie that wasn't swallowed?How can you be so obtuse to the reality of the world? These terrorist overwhelmed at least 1,500 police protecting the Capitol. According to you and Trump, they beat back the police with hugs and kisses.
No, I have not provided a single link to show those things. You know as well as I do that is not how things work in the real world. Trump spent months filling in the sponge minds of his followers with grandiose lies telling them they have to "stop the steel" and "take back your country". In their own words, they believed him and acted in it which culminated in a violent insurrection on Jan 6 - and will happen again if he isn't stopped.
Trump told them to go to Washington to stop the certification -
"Multiple people who stormed the Capitol have claimed they did so on the instructions of President Donald Trump, the Washington Post reported."
"Trump instructed his supporters to come to Washington to attend a "Stop The Steal" rally as he sought to overturn the election, promising his supporters that the protest would be "wild.""
"Leonard M. Niehoff, a First Amendment expert, said that the response to Trump's direct call for supporters to visit the Capitol and "fight" meant the president could be liable."
https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol … ton-2021-1
https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol … ton-2021-1How can you be so obtuse? The police really tried hard to stop it didn't they? A grand total of one shot fired and the rest was simply trying to push them back with bare hands. Just like the rest of the riots over the summer, police did almost nothing but watch the destruction...which was a major reason this one happened. Not because Trump told them to break in and murder people as you claim but because there would be no opposition to their fun.
You haven't provided a link not because "that's the way things work", but because you flat out lied when you claimed you had heard Trump say what you claimed. Do you need a link back to your post where you claimed you had heard it?Unbelievable!! Try reading/watching the real news and not the propaganda you seem to consume so voraciously. Maybe then you will actually understand.
Of course EVERYONE, but Trump supporters, knows it is you who "ignores the truths and fact and instead promotes a false report of why it all happened?
Also, nobody is "assigning motives to the rioters". They tell us exactly why they did it - TRUMP.
"What call? What did Trump say to incite people to riot? ", LOL, you should listen to the insurrectionists more. They are quite clear on why they were there and why they did what they did - Trump called them and they answered and they did what he wanted them to do.
I heard him and they heard him. How come you didn't?
https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol … ton-2021-1
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/nyre … ardon.html
https://news.yahoo.com/capitol-rioters- … 43116.html
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 … s-rioters/ (Yeah, I know it is Mother Jones, but just read the quotes from the insurrectionists)
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/pol … 1.50147245
The law requires that those who heard his words perceive them as incitement and they clearly did even though you didn't.Not a single one of your links provide a link to Trump inciting a riot or calling for people to break into the capital. Not one.
So where did you hear him tell them to? You claim you heard it - where? Give us a link, but until then you are stuck with the conclusion that your claim is 100% false, and I wouldn't believe a rioter being charged with a crime any more than I would you.
(Do you? Do you believe those rioters trying to absolve themselves of responsibility? Why? What evidence did they produce that has you concluding they are telling the truth?)The terrorists were saying Trump is responsible well before they started worrying about going to jail for insurrection. And I watched the crowd become ever more agitated and using violent rhetoric the more Trump spoke that morning. Trump primed them expertly to do what they did.
It is also true that all of Trump's Big Lies and exhortations leading up to Jan 6th caused people like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to conspire to carry out Trump's instructions to "Stop the Steal" and don't let Congress certify the election.
It is strange, isn't it, that the only people who refuse to see the truth are those that support Donald Trump. EVERYBODY else understands what happened and how serious it was, how close it came to bringing down our democracy, how close Trump and his supporters rhetoric and actions are coming to destroying America still.
Why is it that 60% of Americans, in one well respected poll, believe Trump bears responsibility for the violent insurrection by Trump supporters, that caused $30 million in damage, hundreds of maimed or injured police officers, stopped the gov't from doing its job, and led to at least 5 dead. Even 20% of Republicans think this as does 56% of Independents, who often lean Right.
You know who doesn't believe it? The 78% of brainwashed Republicans who believe ANYTHING Trump or Qanon tells them. Not surprisingly, the ONLY demographics, other than the shrinking group of Republicans, where 50% or more think Trump was not responsible are the white Evangelical cult, people who live in rural areas, and white non-college graduates.
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content … pdf#page=3
I know you think this is simply peaceful protesting, but everybody else, especially the cops think you are wrong. This is part of a violent insurrection.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/23/politics … index.htmlAnd you will now believe a self professed criminal, guilty of major crimes, as he attempts to mitigate his sentence.
I won't. Not without more evidence; perhaps the evidence you claim to have seen and heard provide that. Still haven't posted anything to support your claim of hearing Trump ask people, ANY people, to storm the capital, though.
Tell me - just where did you get the idea I think the Capital riot was peaceful? Certainly I've never said so - my personal opinion is that it should have been shut down before they ever got in. By gunfire if necessary. Is this another "I heard it with my own ears" thing, where you never heard anything of the sort?"And you will now believe a self professed criminal, guilty of major crimes, as he attempts to mitigate his sentence." - Who are you talking about? Would I believe whoever this person is over Trump? Of course I would, since Trump is a well-known serial liar.
"Peaceful" - Partly from you (your handful comment, among many others), partly from those RINOs you support who said it was. The Capitol was shut down. That is why the thousand or so violent insurrectionists beat their way through the police lines to get inside to shut down the function of gov't, find Mike Pence to hang him, and to kill a few Democrats while they were at it.
"By gunfire if necessary." - Boy, you certainly have a way of making things up to rail against, lol
""I read and heard him call his army to the Capitol, and I watched and listened to Trump inciting his army"
You forgot to mention that your claim of watching and hearing Trump incite an army did not happen. Yes, we all watched a riot happen, but not a single person watched or heard what you claim you did.
"I watched them conduct a violent insurrection"
You also forgot to mention that gross exaggeration and the use of loaded, scary terminology does not make it true; your claim is, again, no more than nonsense as there was no insurrection. Just another riot, no different than those that had been happening for months and months. Except, of course, that it could be spun into evil actions by Trump if the truth is not important.And you, for whatever political reason, are trying to whitewash and hide what happened.
You go ahead and believe your hogwash and lies, it is your right. But know that by spreading these lies, you are aiding and abetting terrorists.
"You do know the RINOs will do everything in their power to stop any of Biden's initiatives to become law, don't you? That is why it is so important for Democrats to do well in 2022."
As I have said, Biden knew when he made lofty promises how Washington works. he well knew he was just pandering as all politicians do. But Biden took his promises too far... This is just one reason why his approval rate is starting to slip, another is inflation. That is what will bury the Dems in 2022. Along with his failure to keep any of his lofty spending promises. If not, I will owe you an "Oh boy was I wrong"...
"This administration is failing on all counts, " - The opposite is true, save for those things the RINOs can stop such as giving everybody the right to vote." I am not and never will be sure how the media sold this bill of goods to liberals.
"More votes were cast in the 2020 presidential election than in any other U.S. election in history, and the turnout rate was the highest in more than a century." https://www.npr.org/2020/11/25/93724865 … rd-turnout
It would seem unintelligent to feel voters were in some fashion surprised from voting. It appears all did fine casting their ballot. Most states used the voting laws that were on their books, some did add the right to vote via mail-in with little checks and balances due to the pandemic.
The HR1 bill was just a power grab by the Dems that failed. The bill was unconstitutional in several aspects. It was all about statehood for DC which was neatly tucked in, and the media did not address it. I for one am so proud the Republicans stood to protect the Constitution. And I am sure will continue to stand strong when considering the Infrastructure bill, which is overloaded with fooling costly earmarks. I am hoping to see an infrastructure bill pass, with all the fluff removed. If the Rep can't rid the bill of fluffy earmarks, I hope the bill is added to the heap.
Some states have been changing their voting laws to add options to make it easier to vote. Like I said not sure how the media sold the concept that people were suppressed from casting their votes... History was made --- that's a fact. It may not be a fact you can accept, but nonetheless a fact.
I don't think there is anyone that does not realize we had a riot at our Capitol on Jan 6th. Not sure what can be accomplished with another investigation. It seems the FBI and the DOJ have done a good job finding and prosecuting many that broke the law on that day. It would seem you are looking for someone to blame. Again if this was organized by a group or one person it's the FBI and DOJ to prove that. Not a bunch of Congressmen that at this point have more important things to deal with. IMO it's a nice bit of feed to deter those that need to look away from the Biden administration's failures. Can you not see what this bunch does? The Dems always use the same ploy, deflect away from their failures. Oh well, whatever.
The dominoes are starting to fall and bad behavior punished. Rudy Giuliani can't practice law in NY anymore. :-) I suspect his words on Jan 6th will come back to haunt him as well as he is tried for insurrection.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/24/politics … index.htmlSome more dominos will shortly be coming down. At least the Trump Organization and Allen Weisselberg will be criminally charged, apparently for what brought down Al Capone - tax evasion.
I will be interested to see if any of the kids who were responsible for the Organization are indicted as well. The prosecution wouldn't say if Trump would be part of the indictment.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/25/politics … index.html
It is true, polls show RINO's no longer believe in democracy. They have fallen hook, line, and sinker for the biggest subversive of all - former wanna be dictator Donald Trump
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/24/politics … index.htmlYour terrorist former President says to shoot protesters - Really? That is who you believe should lead the world? WOW!
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … ad-vpx.cnnApparently Trump doesn't understand the difference between protesting bad white cops murdering Blacks and other minorities and an armed attack to stop gov't from functioning. Even when you separate the summer riots from the many peaceful protests, the purpose of the riots was gratuitous vandalism and not to stop gov't from functioning.
That gets to the core difference between wanton vandalism and destruction during the summer riots and the armed insurrection at the Capitol. The armed insurrection had a purely political purpose.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/25/politics … index.html"gratuitous vandalism"? You mean as in taking over part of Seattle and refusing entrance to any govt. entity? As in taking over police precincts? As in attacking federal buildings, trying to burn them down? They, too, were armed, much the same as capital rioters were and they, too, attempted to take over govt.
That kind of "gratuitous vandalism"?"You mean as in taking over part of Seattle and refusing entrance to any govt. entity? " - Actually, that didn't happen the way you imply. That was done with Gov't concurrence and when it didn't work as hoped, the gov't shut it down. PLEASE tell the whole story rather than mislead the reader to your false point of view.
Tell me, what was the summer rioters political agenda?? What gov't process did they say they wanted to prevent from happening? The way I saw it was you had a bunch of criminals taking advantage of the peaceful protests to vandalize and cause destruction.
We know what the objective of the armed, violent, insurrectionists at the Capitol was - to carry out Trump's order to stop the certification - that is what Trump and the other insurrectionists told us. BUT, What was the stated objective of the armed, violent, criminals who infected about 5% of the peaceful protests?
And that explains why you have such a myopic view of the world - you only listen to propaganda sources that lie to you or twist reality into their own authoritarian view.
You do not or will not see me supporting anything but facts. It is you that listens to propaganda, and holds on to it as it means your very life. You delve into nothing but conspiracies if comes. I note you don't join in on much of anything current, and when you do you bring the conversation back full circle to Trump. Lots happening each day with the new failing adminstration. Lots of brand new political news. You are stuck in conspiracy land, and I really don't think you will ever break away.
Sorry, but "You do not or will not see me supporting anything but facts." is simply not true. Your comments clearly show you buy into all these RINO conspiracy theories.
Name one piece of propaganda I push? Is it that Trump clearly lost the election? Is it that Biden has done a wonder job subduing the pandemic. Is my conspiracy theory saying that Biden did a great job of realigning America's interests with our allies and against our enemies while Trump did exactly the opposite?
Everything I comment on are facts or well reasoned opinion. Show me one time when that didn't happen.
On the other hand, I can point to say this statement from you "The point is there was no real context to even bring up the subject. ". That is simply false because had you listened to the whole of what he said rather than a biased clip from Fox or where ever you would have heard the context which was Climate Change and Environmental Policy of which he was a major supporter of while in the Senate and as VP.
Another example is the Trumpian habit of making fun of how people talk with "I have not noted CNN covering Biden's speech yesterday where he used a tone of strange whispering,". Again, a false and insulting characterization of a stage whisper for emphasis which I happened to see on - wait for it now - CNN.
BTW, if Trump were so great, why is ranking at the bottom or almost at the bottom of every presidential comparison analysis. In this analysis, Trump ranks third from the bottom. The two they rated worse than Trump is James Buchanan who arguably was instrumental for the Civil War and Andrew Johnson who was unarguably responsible for the failure of Reconstruction and the gutting of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. With time, Trump may make it to the bottom for causing a new Civil War.
An interesting line in this article is this observation:
"In the Siena survey, Trump received the lowest rank — 44th out of 44 — in the categories of integrity, intelligence, and overall ability.
His highest ranking — 10th — came in the "luck" category."
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/presid … st-best/3/
As to "circling back to Trump". Tell me, what is doing this weekend? He is holding rallies in order to whine about losing his election and spreading lies and descension. This is proof he is still trying hard to destoy American and maybe start a new Civil War and that is why I am so passionate about stopping him.You push nothing but propaganda and conspiracies...
"Also, there is PLENTY to find out like what was Trump's involvement? Why are all of those terrorists saying they were doing the bidding of Trump. Was there a more insidious reason why the Capitol police weren't allowed to be prepared? What involvement did some Representatives and Senators have in the insurrection happening. As I say, lots of questions."
"We know what the objective of the armed, violent, insurrectionists at the Capitol was - to carry out Trump's order to stop the certification - that is what Trump and the other insurrectionists told us."
"The fact is - YES, this was planned - by Trump. He spent months agitating his army, feeding them lies, riling them up and then calling them to Washington on Jan 6 to ultimately attack the Capitol and cause an insurrection.
Of course the the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and others planned their insurrection in advance; they had to in order to carry out Trump's directive to stop the certification of the vote -"
All unproven accusations, none of which are based on truth, only your thoughts of conspiracies."You push nothing but propaganda and conspiracies..." - As I asked before, name me some. Tell me what propaganda and conspiracies I have pushed. If you come up blank, which you will, or stay silent, then everybody knows your claim is false.
"All unproven accusations, none of which are based on truth, only your thoughts of conspiracies." - LOL. Then please tell me why they have been indicted for exactly that?? Do you think DOJ indicts people on unproven accusations, none of which are based on truth, ? I don't think so.
Not sure you can prove that Trump "directed the Proud Boys and others to attack the Capitol. Anyone indicted was indicted on crimes they committed at the Capital. Nothing whatsoever to do with Trump.
"USA TODAY gathers details of those cases as the FBI continues to find and charge those responsible for the attack that left five people dead and sent lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence fleeing to shelter.
Included are those arrested on charges federal prosecutors have filed since the riot, and those arrested by Capitol Police and D.C. Metro Police for entering the Capitol or for crimes related to weapons or violence. " Prosecutors have also charged roughly 30 defendants with conspiracy out of more than 480 persons arrested.
You really need to prove your statement in regard to Trump's ordered or planned the Capitol attack otherwise it would appear you are pushing a conspiracy theory that has not been proven to involve President Trump.
Here is a factual list of who has been arrested, and the charges they occurred. The website is the DOJ's official website. So I assume all that they have presented is factual. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
"Capitol Breach Cases
Below is a list of defendants charged in federal court in the District of Columbia related to crimes committed at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C, on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021.
Every case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. Following arrests or surrender, defendants must appear before district court magistrate/judge where the arrest takes place, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."
You continue to promote conspiracies that have not been proven factually.
I have offered the facts from the DOJ. President Trump is not on the list of people arrested for breaking the law at the Jan 6th protest against the 2020 election.
You seem to think as you have now for years that Trump will be arrested.
Do you never tire of accusing this man of crimes?"Do you never tire of accusing this man of crimes?" - So long as he keeps committing them - NO.
--------
Now I will admit that I and others have been throwing around terms like treason, insurrection, riot, sedition, and the like. In the grand scheme of things, they are mean roughly the same thing - an attempt to stop the federal (and I guess state) gov't from carrying out its lawful duty. Nobody can deny that is what happened on Jan 6. But what exactly was it really, what are the actual charges that can be brought? Given how close we are to people, including Trump, to be indicted for such things, it is time to consider the actual definitions. I found this source to help sort this out.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021 … n-legalese
Is Trump, or any one else, guilty of Treason. Based on the language in the Constitution and subsequent Court rulings, the answer is No. Even though this was a violent riot and gov't processes were stop, it doesn't meet the criteria of "an act of war against the US".
Another term I, Sen Romney, and many others have used a lot is "Insurrection". This is a possibility of insurrection for "It means, essentially, to incite, assist in or engage in a full-on rebellion against the government: a step beyond just conspiring against it, and requiring that significant violence be involved.. I would argue that most of those elements have been met.
Was there incitement? Clearly there was. Somebody had to gather those people there and give them a mission to accomplish. Things like that don't just appear out of the blue.
Did people "assist and engage in"[/u\ a confrontation with the federal gov't? Clearly - yes.
Was there significant [u]"violence" involved? Again, without a doubt.
That leaves us with full-on rebellion against the government. I would argue yes, at least in a technical sense. The stated purpose of the attack, from Trump and others, was to stop Congress from certifying the election. They did that. The fact that it was temporary, I believe, is not relevant. Was this Shay's Rebellion? It didn't go that far, but it was a miniature form of that historical event.
Then there is Sedition, a crime which I believe many of the rioters will be found guilty of. All of the elements of proof are there. Sedition Conspiracy involves using—or planning to use—physical force against the U.S. government, as well as efforts to “seize, take, or possess” government property, or “]u]delay the execution of any law of the United States” by force.[/u]. All of those elements are present in many of the cases being brought against the terrorists (using violence for political purposes). The question is - does it apply to Trump. I am not sure that it does. While I personally think it is easy to prove [b]incitement, unless something happened behind the scenes (which I don't put past Trump) I don't see where he conspired with the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers.
Rioting? - Without a doubt.
Incitement - If not Trump, Giuliani, Brooks, and Trump Jr., who then? Those 10,000 people did not march to the Capitol on their own, somebody had to direct them there and evidence is clear that Trump did that in his speech on Jan 6th and in tweets and speeches leading up the event.
Did Trump tell them to do something? Again, the evidence points clearly that he did. His direction was to "Stop the Steal", "Take Back Your Country" and most damning is "Stop the Certification"., or words to that effect.
The only question is if it was foreseeable that violence would come of his exhortations. He told them loudly to fight on Jan 6th? 20 times. And many more times in the days and months leading up to Jan 6. How many times did he softly tell the crowd to do it peacefully? Once! His Jan 6the speech, as well as speeches before that, was littered with references that encouraged his mob to "take action".
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did … ol-1561718I offered you a site where the DOJpostedall that have been arrested, and what they were charged with, as well as how they pled to their crimes. It is very clear the DOJ as well as the FBI is still tracking down any and all they can arrest for the riot. They have charge 30 citizens with Consoricy in the planning of the attack on our Capitol. Donald Trump's name or his son or rudy's have not been charged with conspiracy to incite a riot or an intersection. That is a fact.
I guess you can hold on to hope there is some form of evidence other than verbal evidence from a criminal that can involve Trump in a crime. I would not hold your breath.
If any law enforcement could arrest Trump --- take my word -- they would.
Hopefully, you can also see by the detailed way the DOJ and FBI are handling this investigation that we did not in any respect need a congressional bunch of politicians wasting our money. Trust our law enforcement agencies continue the Jan 6th riot.
They are doing a good job, and that's what we pay them for. Congress is to work for the people and make laws... Not investigate or enforce them.But Sharlee, they are NOT doing a good job if they don't indict Trump for something. Like the faux impeachment efforts it doesn't have to stick - just an indictment is sufficient to convince TDS sufferers that he is guilty.
It would seem it's the same old pattern with Democrats --- accuse Trump of a crime, then look hard for some kind of evidence, and keep lots of propaganda spinning in the media, while they look to convict him of something he just did not do. When one is continually spinning they get dizzy and believe anything.
"accuse Trump of a crime," - WHY? Because it looks very much like he committed one and many experts on the subject at hand, be it getting a foreign power to trash Biden to help Trump win or talk people into rioting at the Capitol or Obstruct Justice believe the evidence is clear that Trump committed a crime.
But Trump has what no other criminals have, 50 or so RINO Senators willing to overlook the truth to protect their ass and their party's ass."WHY? Because it looks very much like he committed one and many experts on the subject at hand,":
You really need to consider, you have been singing this tune for five years now... Trump has not been charged with any crime. Maybe you are listening to the wrong "experts"? Trump is not going to be charged with all of your long list of crimes, the media made them up. it's that simple, and some believed he committed crimes because they just want to.
No one is protecting Trump. This gets sillier each day. Face it, Trump is not going to be arrested, because he has not broken any laws that require him to be arrested."You really need to consider, you have been singing this tune for five years now..." - Could that be because Trump has been committing crimes for five years? Why should I stay silent over that? You didn't and don't in your Obama and Biden bashing.
Perhaps because of all your imagined "crimes" not a single one has resulted in anything more than a political play to remove him from the political scene?
When every one of the dozens of crimes you imagine he committed comes to nothing it should be saying something, and not that "Well we'll try something else, then!"."Perhaps because of all your imagined "crimes" not a single one has resulted in anything more than a political play to remove him from the political scene?" - ONCE again you are missing the obvious. The ONLY reason Trump hasn't paid for his crimes yet is that the RINOs in the Senate were to cowardly to follow the evidence presented and instead kow-towed to Trump's threats.
The scared Senators let a guilty man go.
I think if you stayed silent you would explode. LOL
I am careful when sharing an opinion about Biden to produce a source on where I obtained my information. I have also noted you have shied away from any of my threads where I have set for facts about what Biden has been up to. I very much strive to point out facts, using youtube or and Cspan, and official Government websites to present the facts and quotes. I always back up Biden's quotes. His quotes are very easy to locate online, new and old quotes.
You continuously add comments that are substantiated via sources. It is fine to offer an opinion but it is wise to caution that it is your opinion you are sharing.
Example --- "Could that be because Trump has been committing crimes for five years?"
There is no evidence that Trump committed any crimes or has been charged with any crimes. So this statement is your opinion...
When I am offering facts I add a source, if I am offering an opinion I add an opinion, I add a warning as such.
I certainly don't feel I am bashing Biden. I am providing facts on what he is currently doing or in some cases I have used facts about his past to prove a point. I am careful to offer facts to back my posts. You may not like to address current political subjects, but I certainly have the right to follow the new administration and post-current events. Just as you have the right to stay on the past, rehash all Trump, and very much ignore current events.
Last I looked this was a political forum. I will continue to post political subjects. Feel free to continue ignoring my current political subjects. That's your privilege."I am careful when sharing an opinion about Biden to produce a source on where I obtained my information." - Let's consider that statement for a moment.
- You said "Biden killed Keystone due to it being a Trump accomplishment. He could careless about the 11.000 jobs or the collateral damage... He is a tool" - NO SOURCEs for those three claims
- "He kissed Putin's ass by lifting the heavy sanctions that were placed on Russia by Congress. He's a tool" - NO SOURCE (now to be fair sense it is well known Biden lifted a couple of sanctions regarding the Russian pipeline, unlike you and Wilderness, I don't need a source for that. It is common knowledge. I do need a source about him "kissing Putin's ass" (he was actually kissing Merkle's ass) nor do I see a source that those particular sanctions were put on by Congress nor do I see a source that Biden is a tool.
- "However, what I have seen is non-sensical, and in some cases could be very detrimental to the Country." - NO SOURCE for the detriment part. (I realize it may be non-sensical to you, which doesn't need a source)
Those were from just one string of comments you made."There is no evidence that Trump committed any crimes " - Of course there is plenty of evidence as was displayed in the Mueller Report and the two impeachment trials. I still expect him to be tried on Obstruction of Justice at a minimum because the evidence Mueller produced is so overwhelming.
I also believe he will be tried on something akin to insurrection by either DC or DOJ and for tax evasion and hush money payments by New York.
"I offered you a site where the DOJpostedall that have been arrested," - Yes you did, but it was off point. The point is an investigation is needed for WHY the insurrection happened. What contributed to it. Who helped. The DOJ and FBI or the couple of congressional investigations are doing that.
They are ONLY prosecuting people they saw in videos who broke the law. Show me the investigations they are doing that look into everything behind the insurrection.
BTW, just finished a hub on what Trump could possibility charged with.Not interested in it comes, or conspiracies on what Trump could be charged with. Get back to me if he is charged with "anything"... Jaywalking whatever...
So, it would appear you feel we need a witchhunt to look for motives or charge a crime and then look for evidence It would appear we think differently in regards to crime. I like evidence and then charges. Just funny that way. Half ass-backward I would say.Did you include speeding tickets? Cannibalism? Defacing govt. currency? Not doing required maintenance on his jet? Cock fighting?
I mean, if you're going to make up pretend possibilities might as well include ALL of them.No evidence of those but plenty of evidence of those he has been accused of. The problem is Trumplicans can't afford to take TRUTH as evidence.
"Not investigate or enforce them.:" So you don't think the Legislative Branch should have any checks on the Executive Branch? I suggest you read the Constitution again and maybe Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention. If you do, you might come to a different conclusion.
I think if Congress has evidence that the executive branch did something wrong they have the right to investigate. There is no evidence Trump did anything wrong in regard to Jan 6th protest/riot.
And, of course, you are very wrong there. There is plenty of evidence and hopefully DOJ is looking at it.
Do you realize you are being very nonsensical? If our Congress or DOJ or FBI has any evidence that Trump committed a crime they would go after him. My God this ridiculous bunch has been after him for over 5 years. Give it up.
Yet both are going after Trump. So, by your logic, they have evidence.
Could you provide a factual source that the DOJ and FBI HAVE A CURRENT INVESTIGATION OPEN ON TRUMP?
Hopefully, you have not linked your teeth into the latest media reports on-- "The Justice Department Watchdog Will Review A Trump-Era Probe Of Democratic Lawmakers"
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/11/10054582 … -committee
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … estigation
This investigation is of the Trump administration DOJ. Trump is not implicated in this investigation at all. Media outlets are being very careful with accusations of Trump being involved. You just don't seem to have the same restraint.
YOU NEED TO ADD A FEW SOURCES to back up such an allegation.Ask and you will receive - "The Justice Department is investigating former President Donald Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, a federal prosecutor has confirmed." - https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/po … itol-riot. I don't deal in conjecture very often and when I do, I try to label it as such. More frequently, I offer reasoned conclusions, by using the brain God gave me, based on a set of facts I use the same reasoning methodology I did when I prosecuted cases in the Army way back when. It served me well then and it serves me well now.
Also, your two sources have nothing to do with Trump inciting the insurrection on Jan 6. They are about possible other crimes by - somebody at the behest of Trump.Your link does not work...
Here is something more interesting ---Analysis: Biden’s Justice Dept may defend Trump in Capitol riot lawsuits... And then there is this.
"Earlier this month, this website wondered aloud, “Why the hell is Joe Biden’s Justice Department defending Donald Trump?” The question arose from a bizarre, troubling pattern of late in which the DOJ, currently lead by Attorney General Merrick Garland, has gone to bat for the ex-president. In May, for example, the department filed a motion seeking to appeal a federal judge’s ruling that the agency had to release the memo that Bill Barr used to help clear Trump of obstruction in the Russia probe. Weeks later, Garland’s attorneys continued a push started by Barr to defend Trump in a defamation lawsuit brought by author E. Jean Carroll" https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06 … pitol-riot
So wonderful to see our new DOJ defending President Trump... As I said don't hold your breath on Trump being indicted on --- anything.
Looks like New York has also tossed in the towel. I just posted a thread on their three-year witchhunt coming to a disappointing end or at least that's what has leaked. I know you appreciate leaks.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bidens … 021-06-22/Try
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/po … pitol-riot
I just tested it and this one worked."In an interview that aired Sunday on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Sherwin, who up until Friday was the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., said there is evidence to support that Trump loyalists were motivated by the former president’s rhetoric on Jan. 6. But Sherwin said there is also evidence to the contrary."
"everything is being looked at"
Pretty indecisive.It may be indecisive but the fact still remains, Trump is under investigation by the DOJ for crimes related to Jan 6, something you said I was wrong about. Turns out, I wasn't.
First, it is not "Joe Biden's Justice Department" as Reuters claims. He is doing a great job of depoliticizing it from the mess Trump left it in and letting it be the Independent department that it was designed to be. Trump is the only president to turn it into his own personal law office.
Second, I understand (but do not agree with) Garland's point that "virtually any" statement a president makes while in office is off-limits.. I don't think the courts will agree but only time will tell.
WOW! I see Fox News polling has Biden at 56%
Thought you might do that. Here are their ratings with biases (+ Blue, - Red)
Rating Bias
The poll I saw Fox - Beacon. A +1.8
Rasmussen B - 1.5
National Review - This wasn't a survey
Forbes - Behind a fire wall
Des Moines Register - Not a national poll
en.as.com - Spanish Newspaper, but they reported on a Monmouth poll
Monmouth - `` A + 2.1
I am surprised the Fox-Beacon has such a strong Democratic bias; the other pollster Fox uses has -0.3 bias. They are a good poll which is why I always pay attention to them.
The Monmouth poll and Fox poll contradict each other since both have a strong D bias. I can explain the Monmouth poll as a bunch of pissed off progressives, but not the Fox poll.
But here are others:
Reuters-Ipsos B- +1.6 Biden 53
Rasmussen-Don't know which survey you picked but the latest one has Biden at 51
Economist/You Gov B+ + 0.7 Biden 52
Politico/Morning Con. B + 2.9 Biden 54
Your Monmouth Biden 49
Gallup B+ -0.6 Biden 56
According to your view of Biden, he should be about 20 or so. I, on the other hand, expect his numbers to max out at about 60 since roughly 40% are attached at the hip to Trump.
Now, where does Trump stand?
Overall for his 1st and only term - 42.8 and in Jan 2020 - 41.1
Compare that to:
Obama - 47.75 for 2 terms with Jan 2017 ending up at 57.2 (must be buyers remorse after Trump won)
Bush Jr. - 48.75 but his 1st term was very high and his 2nd term very low. Jan 2009 was only 29
You can tell Trump hasn't lost much of his base as his favorability is at a low 41.5 with a range between 37 and 45.
Only briefly, in Dec 2016, did his positive favorability almost catch up to his negative favorability - 44.0 to 48.2
Face it, most of America does not like Donald Trump nor do they think he did a very good job. What do they see you don't?
This articles headline as "A Bad Week For The Big Lie", Trump and his minions attempts to subvert democracy in America.
1. A Republican Senate in Michigan, attempting to replicate the fake audit in Arizona, ended issuing "a report that eviscerated Trump's lies about voter fraud. " Further "The report included a stinging condemnation of the lies about voter fraud pushed by Trump and his supporters."
2. "in Georgia on Thursday, a judge dismissed most of a lawsuit that claimed fraudulent mail-in ballots had been cast in Fulton County ...in last year's election -- a blow to the pro-Trump plaintiffs' bid to conduct an in-person examination of nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots with high-powered microscopes." The part of the lawsuit the judge did allow to move forward was a request digital images of the ballots.
3. Rudy Giuliani, one of the most prodigious spreader of the Big Lie, was temporarily disbarred from practicing law in New York. The "court concluded that "there is uncontroverted evidence" that Giuliani ... communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump's failed effort at reelection in 2020." Further, the court found that "Giuliani's "conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law,". FINALLY, some consequences for spreading Trump's Big Lie. Hopefully there will be many more to follow as the forces of good continue to battle against Trump's forces of evil.
From the source of Truth and Honesty, CNN - https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/27/politics … index.htmlYou know who use to be huge Trump supporters? Brian Sicknick and his significant other Sandra Garza. Now Brian is dead, effectively killed by Trump supporters and Sandra calls Trump the mastermind behind Brian's death.
She says she kept thinking as she watched the insurrection: "Where is the President? Why is it taking so long for the National Guard to arrive? Where is the cavalry?"
And now she says ""To know that some members of Congress -- along with the former President, Donald Trump, who Brian and I once supported but who can only now be viewed as the mastermind of that horrible attack -- are not acknowledging Brian's heroism that day is unforgivable and un-American."
I bet Trump or any other RINO will never get her vote and the vote of anybody she can convince of who was responsible for her guys death.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/27/opinions … index.htmlI must point out all of this --
"How is Trump any different than bin Laden in that regard? Consider:
1. He used violent rhetoric throughout his candidacy and presidency to stir up supporter to violence - often successfully as many who were on the receiving end of his supporters assaults have testified (including the Capitol Police)
2. He created the Big Lie about not losing the election for his followers to rally around
3. He frequently suggested that TAKE ACTION which resulted in assaults on several government agencies that culminated in the January 6 insurrection against America
4. In a call to arms, he gathered them in one place with the sole intent of marching on the Capitol.
5. He exhorted them to march on the Capitol and STOP Congress from doing its Constitutional duty
6. When they did what he wanted, he did nothing to stop the violence he instigated until he knew it was way too late.
7. In his rhetoric and actions, he provided material support to known domestic terrorist organizations such as the Proud Boys and Qanon."
Do you see a connection to all of your points? He said... Yes, words. words that have been spun out of context MUCH of the time.
Can't you see what media is perpetrating? My God wake up.
Look at your own words... None of them are evidence, they are conjecture on your part. PURE conjecture." Yes, words. words that have been spun out of context MUCH of the time." - What spin? Which of those things could possibly be considered spin. There is evidence for all of them.
"Can't you see what media is perpetrating?" - If you are talking about the Right-Wing media, I absolutely agree. If you are talking about the main stream media, then all I do is take their truthful reporting, analyze, and draw conclusions
"None of them are evidence, " - There is evidence backing each and every one - no conjecture at all.
" Former President Donald Trump is facing a wall of accountability and truth as new revelations and investigations expose his abuses of power, delusional lies about the election and business conduct to ever greater scrutiny.
Just consider what has taken place over the last several days:
- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday announced a House Select Committee to investigate the January 6 insurrection Trump incited. - And let me note it will a bi-partisan committee
Details in new books about Trump's misconduct in office underscore the depth of his autocratic threat.
A stunning report revealed that former Attorney General William Barr thought his voter fraud claims were "bull---," shattering Trump's voter fraud lies. - But only saying this to recoop his image after walking up the edge in pushing Trump's Big Lie
A GOP-led report into Trump's delusional claims of a stolen election in Michigan turned up nothing. - As will the fake and flawed audit in Arizona
Trump's chief propagandist of voter fraud, Rudy Giuliani, already suffered the consequences for his campaign of falsehoods by seeing his law license suspended. - and is still under investigation for other Trump-related malign activity
And, perhaps most seriously for Trump, the ex-President's lawyers met prosecutors on Monday in a last-ditch effort to stave off criminal charges possibly targeting the Trump Organization and its namesake's longtime financial guru, Allen Weisselberg. - with other investigations continuing
And let me add -
Mike Pence calls Trump's actions on Jan 6th unAmerican
DOJ is probably investigating Trump for Jan 6-related crimes
The DC Attorney General is investigating Trump for Jan 6-related crimes
At least one District Attorney in Georgia is investigating Trump for voting-related crimes.
And you wonder why I think that man is a Clear and Present danger to American democracy.
The calculus is simple, if someone supports Trump, they oppose democracy whether they know it or not.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/29/politics … index.htmlIs another Trump-inspired "Jan 6" moment in the offing? According to his supporters it is.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … x-ebof.cnnI know conservatives think that people shouldn't use their brain to critically think about things and use reasoned, informed analysis to form judgments about a situation but here is a couple pretty good analyses about the potential criminal charges coming up surrounding the Trump Organization, its executives, and Trump himself.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/29/opinions … index.html
https://www.brookings.edu/research/new- … cable-law/IMO I think this forum is very open to opinion-oriented discussion
That is true, but many opinions from the Conservative side suggest they think "people shouldn't use their brain to critically think about things and use reasoned, informed analysis to form judgments about a situation "
I argue, and many studies have shown, that when people (normally conservative) chose a leader to blindly follow, such as those who have chosen Trump, leave their critical thinking capabilities behind.
"Those who score high on the RWA scale are submissive to authority but can be aggressive on behalf of that authority. They are conventional in their thinking and behavior, highly religious, have less education, are highly prejudiced against other groups, oppose equal opportunity, lack critical-thinking skills, and often hold inconsistent positions. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ … story.html
If you want to see where you fall on the RWA scale, you can take a test on my hub about the subject at - http://hub.me/aapSE (one of my most popular hubs) or here - https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/RWAS/ for a more generic version. For comparison, I scored 14.2 on the psychometrics test and scored 0% on my version of the same test.
I wonder why the Department of Homeland Security thinks Trump supporters will turn violent AGAIN, come August?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/30/politics … index.htmlWell, it isn't terrorism - yet - but the next domino has fallen. The Manhattan Grand Jury is indicting the Trump Organization and its CFO Alan Weisselberg on CRIMINAL charges.
The DA will charge the Trump Organization and the CFO on Thursday, probably with an array of tax crimes. Most of them have to do with perks given out, without taxes being paid on them. What may push this into the criminal realm is cash bonuses given without paying taxes. This should be the beginning of more serious charges to follow.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/30/politics … index.htmlSounds like you missed out - again - on finding Trump guilty of anything. But don't give up - watch long enough and you may find him jaywalking. Surely a crime worthy of prison!
Shoot, you may even be able to convict some of his associates of the crime of not paying taxes on all of the bennies they got from their job. Sounds much like the first claim against him (colluding with Putin to fix the election), where nothing was found so anyone associated was "investigated" to within an inch of their life.As I said, just one more domino on the way to 1) indicting Trump and 2) convicting him. Of what, who knows, there are SO MANY to choose from, lol. He is under investigation or being tried for a whole host of malign activities from tax fraud, to voter fraud, to insurrection, to defamation, to obstruction of justice, to - and the list goes on and on (and it doesn't include jaywalking but might include contempt of court if Trump violated a gag order the judge in the Trump Organization trial might impose - just saying)
I need to remind you, you have been waiting for domino's to fall for over 5 years. In each witchhunt, Trump has not been charged with a crime. New York has Trump's tax records, and it would seem they also have egg on their faces. I would think this man has a host of tax attornies that have worked on his personal and business taxes. Which actually are responsible for in the end. Not sure if you thought about that.
And I need to remind you that in the 1st impeachment trial, {b]over 50%[/b] of the Senators felt Trump was guilty. The ONLY reason he wasn't convicted is because of the cowardice of the remaining RINOs, the evidence was clear.
And I need to remind you that in the 2nd impeachment trial, the forces of good barely missed the 60% threshold which means well more than 50% of the Senators felt the evidence was strong enough to convict. The ONLY reason Trump wasn't convicted is because of the cowardice of the remaining RINOs, the evidence was clear.
You apparently don't understand how responsibility works. Trump is the micromanaging head of his company. He cannot claim ignorance (remember he is a self-proclaimed genius, lol) as a defense. He owns the company and bears ultimate responsibility.
He cannot hide behind his tax accountants when it is common knowledge (like 1+2 = 3 in any number system) that not taking taxes out for certain benefits and cash bonuses is illegal. Even I agree he is not THAT dumb.
Now that the DA has stopped the clock from running out, he can turn his attention to the more serious crimes of manipulating the books to reduce tax liability and fool banks into giving him loans.
Of course we sitll have the investigations into:
- Insurrection
- Defamation
- Voter Fraud
- Obstruction of Justice
and all of the others that are on going.The DA of New York has all but dropped the entire investigation. Nothing was in Trump's taxes, he was not indicted for anything. Even the CNN pundits today claim it's all over. There never was any there to be found. Those indited will be exonerated, perks, like they received, are very much the norm. They all plead not guilty. IT's all but over.
It will be interesting to see; I recall some 30 years ago when the tax requirements for cars given to employees had to suddenly be taxed. Highly illegal not to pay taxes on that "income" and the company I worked for gave raises about equal to the tax that would be owed to compensate employees for the extra tax burden.
These cases will be interesting. Some punnets are claiming these charges should have been civil charges. Wonder why these employees were charged with a criminal offense vs a civil offense Maybe overkill.
It could very well be that at this point the tax evasion is totaling more than $1.7M and has happened over the last 15 years!! is why it is criminal instead of civil. It may also be severe enough to get Weisselberg actual jail time.
Also, the indictment talked in terms of "many", not just Weisselberg. That leaves the door wide open for more indictments of others, including Trump. It also may get others talking and cooperating with the prosecutor.Isn't there a statue of limitations on tax cases? Seems like I recall a specific number of years to maintain tax records.
There is little doubt that they will find evidence (testimony) implicating Trump in tax evasion or something. Tell a criminal that you will reduce his sentence if he will testify that Trump committed a crime and you will a testimony that Trump committed a crime. We already see that in the Capital riot, and have known for a thousand years that it very often works quite well.Yes there is. But, in NY, if it is an on-going crime, then the limitation doesn't apply and they can bring in all violations related to the current crime.
"Tell a criminal that you will reduce his sentence if he will testify that Trump committed a crime and you will a testimony that Trump committed a crime. " - In American law, the testimony from a particular person, in and of itself, isn't enough - there must be corroborating evidence.
I lost a case when I was a trial counsel in the Army. I presented my case and rested. I used the testimony of a single witness to show the defendant was guilty and I had corroborating evidence in hand that I was going to use in rebuttal. (keep in mind, I had a real JAG supervising my case and was sitting next me) When I rested, the defense immediately stood up and asked that the case be dismissed because I hadn't proved my case. The judge agreed and didn't pay attention when I said "but, but, your Honor, I have corroboration" and he replied with something like "well, you should have presented it before you rested, Case dismissed". I learned a big lesson.
So your point about the unreliability of some witness testimony doesn't hold water.According to you, that witness testimony ONLY holds water with corroborating evidence. And if that was there you can bet Trump would already by indicted.
Why would I bet that? Why wouldn't I bet that the prosecution is trying to make as airtight a case as they can before indicting Trump?
That was one of Reagan's initiatives. In addition, the company has to pay taxes on the car AND the raises (as does the recipient) One of the things the Trump Organization (and Weisselburg) is accused of is not paying taxes on these things for the last 15 years!! totaling $1.7 M (which is probably why this is a criminal prosecution rather than a civil one like most are)
"The DA of New York has all but dropped the entire investigation." - And YOU say that I jump to conclusions with no evidence? What was that?
"Those indited will be exonerated, perks, like they received, are very much the norm. " - YES, that would be true. But is ALSO the "norm" is that the company and recipients pay taxes on those benefits and perks. Why are you misleading the reader?
"Even the CNN pundits today claim it's all over. " - not the ones I listened to. I do know one criminal defense lawyer said she thought it would be possible that no more indictments were coming, but was rather tentative in that assessment - the rest thought that wasn't the case and these charges were filed to stop the statute of limitations clock, which makes sense."Predictions and Opinions" - Duh!! That proves my point that conservatives don't want people to use their brains to analyze information and make informed, reasoned judgements.
LOL We've seen boxes and boxes of "dominoes" over the years. We've seen SO MANY claims of criminal activity. We've seen years of the entire might of the US justice department thrown at Trump.
And not a single conviction. Not even an indictment unless you count the 2 politically based, fake impeachment efforts. Both of went exactly nowhere, just alike all the other."We've seen years of the entire might of the US justice department thrown at Trump." - IN WHAT world do you live, not the real one obviously. The DOJ was in Trump's pocket for the entire term of his presidency.
"2 politically based, fake impeachment efforts. " - OH, you mean the ones where over 50% of the Senators said it WASN'T politically based and that over 50% of the Senators said the impeachments WEREN'T fake. Is THAT what you are referring to?
In fact, the only people who think what you falsely claim is true are the brainwashed Trump supporters. The rest of America knows the TRUTH of the matter.Yes. The impeachment effort(s) where the vote was almost 100% along party lines for over 300 politicians. If you can't understand that as being politically based I can't help you. Anyone that actually thinks about it, and is honest with themselves, does understand. We even had high ranking Democrats explain that it was a political move right from the start; that ALL impeachments are about politics rather than truth or justice.
"Yes. The impeachment effort(s) where the vote was almost 100% along party lines for over 300 politicians." - 1) I am glad you agree. 2) Also, the operative word was almost meaning it wasn't 100% along party lines There were a few sane Republicans who aren't living in Trump's malign fantasy world telling the Big Lie over and over and over again following Joseph Goebbels maxim that if you tell a lie often enough a bunch of mindless RINOs will believe you.
Just curious -- what will you think if Arizona finds that widespread voter fraud did occur? It's a possibility, the report should be coming soon.
Are you not at all beginning to feel Trump may have not done anything you feel he had? So, much of what the media accused him of has been proved to be untrue.
The photo op at the church, the report Trump knew about bounties on our soldiers, the Russian hoax, the tax crimes... and so much more all nothing but media lies.
Makes me wonder about Arizona's recount, and how they have had no leaks... So what if there was huge fraud on the part of the Democrats?"what will you think if Arizona finds that widespread voter fraud did occur? " - Then I would think the Fake Audit needs to be audited itself. Why, because like Judge Judy often says, "if something doesn't make sense, then it isn't true" If the Fake Audit finds more fraud than the previous two audits (and EVERY other audit conducted after the 2020 election) found, then it doesn't make sense and they probably fudged the data.
Bounties - Trump was informed - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53231840
Russian Hoax - according to Mueller, [i[it wasn't a hoax[/i] -- read the report here https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-new-u … ler-report and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report
Tax Crimes - then why did the Grand Jury just indict Trump's Trump Organization for just that??
SO, it does look like the media had it right after all
photo op - the jury is still out.
.fraud on the part of the Democrats? - Then why have only Republicans been charged with fraud for the 2020 election?Here's the thing, we already know the CyberMonkeys Arizona audit will find fraud because it's being done by a firm run by a Trump supporter who said there was fraud and the count is being done by people in MAGA hats. It would be totally surprising if they DIDN'T find fraud.
The company has no experience doing audits and the whole thing has been criticized by everyone, Republican and Democrat alike, who has ever conducted an audit, because it's not following standard rules about how to properly count and maintain chain of custody. It's a joke.
So we already know that this "audit" will claim fraud.I agree 100% (or at least 99%). Just as surely as a Democrat run or funded audit would NOT find significant fraud (whether there or not).
Agreed - I would oppose a similar type audit run by Democrats as much as I oppose this farce.
I agree with that statement. You would never conduct a partisan audit. However, in this case, Republican-led state governments have already conducted multiple audits and found nothing. More than 70 lawsuits have been brought across the country resulting in nothing. The very person making the accusations (Trump's lawyer) has admitted she was lying. The former Attorney General, Bob Barr, has said the whole thing was bull***. So this isn't just a partisan audit. It's an audit with people running it who have already pre-determined the outcome and, according to anyone who has witnessed it, botched every possible SOP for an audit.
Exactly what I said, isn't it? The result is pre-ordained, just as it would be if the Democrats ran it. The only difference is one is looking for what isn't there and the other isn't looking for what might be there.
"It would be totally surprising if they DIDN'T find fraud." - Since they appear to be done, but haven't reported, they are probably trying to figure out how to cook the books without getting caught, lol.
I would think if they confirm fraud they are responsible for proving it with hard evidence. After all, they are counting ballots. The ballots should tell the story of fraud if there was any. Hard evidence would be very hard to dispute.
Common sense tells one that.The same ballots were audited twice before by the appropriate Republican (I think) authorities and found insignificant fraud, if any at all. Unfortunately, that wasn't the answer the AZ RINOs wanted to hear so now we have this circus that only serves put our democracy in doubt.
This charade is already going to cost the tax payer more money because the AZ election officials won't use any machine these clowns touched. AZ, or at least Maricopa County, is going to have to buy all new voting machines.There are actually four companies working on the audit. Not sure why the voting machines can't be used after being recertified if requested by a state - Dominion will recertify machines. due to the change in custody.
Again IMO If they find problems it will most likely end up in a lawsuit, and the four companies will be responsible for what evidence they produce.This will explain why, but it boils down to them not trusting the Ninja's to have not done something malign with the machines.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/po … 790377002/
You are right, it probably will end up in a lawsuit, wasting millions of more dollars for no reason what-so-ever other than to support Trump's Big Lie and to weaken our democracy in our own eyes, let alone those who used to look up to America as a beacon of hope. Now, they can't do that anymore. It is so sad.They are not following standard auditing rules and have broken chain of custody many times, which means the results cannot be trusted. Every person with experience doing audits has said this is a farce.
If these companies find widespread fraud and can prove it --- is well worth the money in any state. I do not want to see widespread fraud ignored period. (I am not saying there was a fraud, just voicing an opinion on If there was fraud it needs to be addressed and outed). PERIOD
Beacon of hope? If there was a fraud, and it is evident that a beacon of hope has been scattered by whatever political party perpatrated that fraud. Hopefully, there was no dam fraud because it will be a disgrace to the Country ! I could give a dam about a beacon of hope at this point!
It always amazes me how ridiculous some on the left rationalize.
Voter fraud in itself mares our democracy! And hiding it or not wanting to get to the bottom of it further mares our common sense as a Nation."If these companies find widespread fraud and can prove it " - How many more of these farcical attempts to prove something everybody, including you, know doesn't exist are you going to support until you have had enough of it and join my side?
You saying "If there was a fraud" is like me saying "if 1 + 1 = 4". Neither are true nor will they ever be true. So why do you keep giving the Big Lie aid and comfort and allow it to ruin our democracy. It amazes me that you don't see that you are part of this problem by allowing for and vocalizing the possibility widespread fraud actually exists - by not opposing it, you are promoting the [b]Big Lie[/b\ whether you mean to or not.
"Voter fraud in itself mares our democracy! " - WRONG. Had you said "Widespread voter fraud mares our democracy!", then you would have me agreeing with you. But it simply doesn't exist.
I would wager you drive over the speed limit more times in a year that there is real voter fraud in the same time period. lolSounds much like the incessant efforts to convict Trump of a crime doesn't it? "They" just won't stop, always hoping that around the next corner (or investigation) something might be found...but it never is.
When Trump's own lap dog, Bill Barr, says that the whole thing was bullish**, you can't get much more confirmation of the big lie than that.
The burden of proof is on the people making the accusation. Not wanting to look for something that hasn't been proven to exist doesn't reflect poorly on Democrats and doesn't mean they're resisting anything.
Trump has been claiming fraud long before the election. He said if he lost there would be fraud. He asked multiple officials to find the fraud. He convinced his supporters there was fraud. His own lawyer said she was lying. The people doing the audit said there was fraud.
There's no "if". They're going to find what they're looking for because they're already convinced it's there and they want to make Trump happy.
You are absolutely right, fraud mars democracy. Given how much fraud Trump perpetrated during his presidency and continues to perpetrate with the Big Lie, how can you not connect the dots and be upset with how much he's undermined Democracy?LOL If something is proven to exist, there isn't much reason to look for it, is there?
No, the Democrat method is to proclaim that it hasn't been found because no one looked, so there is no reason to look.
No, don't assume I think there was massive fraud - I don't. I just think it's comical to declare there is nothing there when it has not been searched for and therefore there is no need to search.
Like with the hush money payments to Cohen, here is instance of how Trump may be charged.
"According to the indictment, Weisselberg received perks including $359,058 in tuition payments for Columbia Grammar & Preparatory School for two of his grandchildren. Those payments were made by checks from Donald Trump's account signed by Trump himself, and later from the Donald J. Trump revocable trust, the indictment said."When I worked for a small manufacturing location of a large company we signed the checks as somebody in the head office. All done by computer, with the key carefully locked away.
Are you saying the great narcissist himself, Trump, didn't sign the checks. But in any case, in the very unlikely chance he let a machine take the glory, he authorized it which is the same thing.
What do YOU think? Did Trump sign and mail the checks personally or did the business do it?
Of course he authorized it; he "authorized" every check written, from the bill for soda pop to the janitor's wages. Whether he knew where each dollar went, and approved of the purchase is another matter, of course.
Were this heavily armed militia Trump supporters? Probably. Were they going to train for the next Trump insurrection? Probably. Only time will tell.
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2021/07/03/ … -in-place/Yes, only time will tell. It sure looks like many are not willing to buy Biden's spending or crazy ideologies. The country is at crossroads. This could be very dangerous.
"It sure looks like many are not willing to buy Biden's spending or crazy ideologies. " - I think you misstated that. It should be "It sure looks like a few are not willing to buy Biden's spending or crazy ideologies.". Most Americans think Biden is doing a great job over all
I guess we will need to wait to see. Oh but , polls say differently. He is tanking as I said fast.
Unfortunately, he does not seem to be able to control crime in the Dem cities. You know the cities, the ones that Dems called to defund the police last summer. So unfortunate the Democrats supported violence last summer. It now seems to be biting them in the butt. Even with their backflip, trying to blame defunding of these Dem cities on the bad old Republicans. Yeah like the Republicans had any power in let's say, New York, Chicago, Portland, San Fran... LOL, They don't only look stupid, but hypocritical.
New Yahoo News/YouGov poll: Biden's approval rating falls, as both Republicans and Democrats grow more concerned about crime
https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-news-y … 06661.html
Support for Biden erodes among Democrats -poll
June 30 https://news.yahoo.com/support-biden-er … 40345.html
How unpopular is Joe Biden?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/bi … al-rating/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewst … 4bb6863d1b
Biden support slips below 30 percent in new poll
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-america … -democratsThis is why people have to wary of the links you post.
"Biden support slips below 30 percent in new poll
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-america … -democrats" is a 2019 poll, LOL.
Your Forbes article is a bit deceptive. It doesn't show the breakdown between very liberal and liberal to explain the 4-point drop. I have said this before, of course you will see a drop like that because the very liberal don't like Biden trying to do the right thing and be bipartisan.
Your 538 poll shows a very steady approval rating, so I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. His range is a low of 51.7 to 55.5 and is currently at 52.9.
Your June 30 Yahoo report doesn't say which Ipsos poll they used, but it reads like the one Forbes referenced - in other words a duplicate just make it seem more impressive.
I couldn't find the poll the other Yahoo news was reporting on, but it seemed to be talking about crime.
Now we find out Trump and is surrogates attempted to subvert the Arizona election in the same way they tried in Georgia. Georgia started an investigation of Trump for that, will Arizona?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/02/politics … index.htmlI am surprised at myself for not thinking of the insurrection in military terms given my background. But as the numbers come out regarding the number of "troops" that attacked the Capitol.
There are 535+ people currently charged for invading the Capitol and the FBI is looking for at least another 350 they have pictures of. That totals a minimum of 885 individuals who participated. There were an additional 9,000 support troops that didn't actually attack the police but the police nevertheless had to deal with.
Now consider what a 1970s infantry battalion is made up of. A typical battalion has 5 companies: 3 infantry companies, 1 support company made of various indirect and direct fire weapons, and 1 HQ company.
An infantry company has 3 infantry platoons, a heavy weapons platoon, and a HQ platoon.
An infantry platoon is made of 3 infantry squads and a heavy weapons squad and no support units.
A squad is roughly 9 men and women.
Working backwards, an infantry platoon has about 4 x 9 = 36 combat troops
An infantry company has about 4 x 36 = 144 combat troops (plus the HQ platoon)
That means an infantry battalion has about 4 * 144 = 576 combat troops (plus the HQ)
So based on those numbers, Trump brought just shy of 2 battalions (2/3s of a brigade) of troops to the Capitol to stop the vote that day.
No wonder they overwhelmed the Capitol police which the ill=prepared for the violent attack (another goal of the Select Committee is to find out WHY they were so ill-prepared for this event while they were armed to the teeth and out in larger numbers for the relatively peaceful BLM protest earlier that year. Was there collusion with the Executive Branch?)
And on Dec 19, Trump tweeted: "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!". Well they certainly went wild alright.
Wilderness - I think that is a bit more than the "handful" you claimed, lol.My God!! What is happening to the conservatives? White Supremacists, Nazis, Fascists, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers - and now this. Where does the attack on America stop? It certainly won't stop until Trump goes to jail since he won't stop agitating the violent parts of his base with his Big Lie
And now a new book reports Trump told Gen Kelly that [i]Hitler did a lot of good things[/b] - Gee, where have I heard that before?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/07/politics … index.htmlMaybe when BLM and other liberal factions quit providing such fine venues for the riots that really ARE "attacking America"? Have to say that the year long rioting did far more damage (100X? 1,000X?) than the one riot you attribute to Trump did.
Yes, the summer of love was caused far more damage and death... And IMO set the precedence for the historic crime rates in Dem cities.
As I proved to you both earlier, on a per hour basis, the Insurrection was way more violent and destructive than any given summer riot. It took a whole summer of riots to equal or surpass one four hour long insurrection on the seat of our government.
Not an insurrection but a protest that clearly got out of hand. Little violence occurred, and people have been arrested and charged. I also pointed out a while back how Vp Harris raised money to bail out protesters. Protesters ended up being rapists and violent criminals. And in regard to damages many cities last summer businesses were looted, burned, and these cities were left in shambles. I also pointed out the double-digit death toll due to those summer riots. You have nothing in regards to proof of an insurrection.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … ting-trial
"How much damage was done to Minneapolis?
At cost of $350 million, approximately 1,300 properties in Minneapolis were damaged by the rioting and looting, of which nearly 100 were entirely destroyed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fl … Saint_Paul
Protests cost $23 million in damage, lost business, Portland police say. Night after night, groups of demonstrators advocating against racial injustice and police brutality gather in downtown Portland. The protests have been occurring regularly for about six weeks.Jul 8, 2020
https://katu.com/news/local/portland-po … x%20weeks.
https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-proper … cea9c.html
As you can see facts just show you are not correct in your assessment of the cost to liberal states for the liberals to promote their violence.
The Headline says "McCarthy nailing down GOP members for Capitol riot panel as Republicans' defense strategy comes into view".
I am confused. What is McCarthy defending against? The purpose of the committee is to dig down to the roots of the insurrection, what caused it, and how to prevent it from happening again. Maybe he is defending against the TRUTH from coming out rather than his whitewash of what happened in the worst attack against American democracy since 1812? Maybe he wants it to happen again, which DHS says there an increased chance of happening the longer Trump keeps telling his {Big Lie[/b]
At one time this RINO supported an independent commission - then he didn't. Then the RINOs defeated the independent commission outright forcing those looking for answers to this Select Committee.
I really prefer an America with two, honest, patriot political party's. Unfortunately, what used to be the Republican Party has left the field and replaced it with a bunch of conspiracy theory believers.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/07/politics … index.htmlIMO, it seems more like the Democratic party is doing something they are well known for --- Labeling it a crime (insurrection) and then half-assed looking for something to prove the crime. In other words, it is what in days of old was called a witchhunt. And by the way, all the Jan 6th "protest went bad" hype is feed -- feed to feed the frenzy that many on the left are addicted to. Just another leftist conspiracy, like all the rest --- "This time Trump will be charged, he will go to prison!" My God give it up this looks all so foolish IMO.
"Labeling it a crime (insurrection) " - THAT is because it was. More than a battalion of armed Trump troops successfully stormed the Capitol with the sole purpose of stopping the certification vote - which they did. That perfectly fits the definition of insurrection to an unbiased mind.
INSURRECTION - "a violent uprising against an authority or government."You have no proof to back up such a hyperbolic statement. IMO it was a protest against the election. Legal in America.
Of course it was; even the most die hard liberal will tell you that it was because of the "Big Lie", causing people to think the election was stolen. All they wanted was a fair, legal election, but that part is forbidden to mention.
I actually think that some liberals need their own dictionary. It must be hard using ours. Of course, it must get very hard for them to change the definitions of words to suit their needs.
It's not a matter of a dictionary or understanding. It's a matter of using terminology and spin to give a false impression, to convince people that a falsehood is true; a lie in plain, simple words.
Yes, very true... However, they certainly do twist a given word out of context.
"We believe truth not facts" LOLWell, yes. If simple words, using dictionary definition, is used then the desired impression fails miserably.
If we call the Capital riot exactly what it was - a riot - it becomes just another riot in a year chock full of them. That is very undesirable, for it fails to apply blame to Trump and it makes it apparent that it was just another normal day in a country full of violence and lack of respect for the law.
"It's not a matter of a dictionary or understanding. " - Classic nonsense.
Anyone that thinks "March peacefully to the Capital and peacefully speak to your representatives" is inciting an "insurrection" cannot speak to dictionary meanings.
Sorry, but that is exactly what you are doing.
An armed insurrection by a battalion + of Trump troops is a peaceful protest. Now I have heard everything. Simply amazing!
And what so-called "proof' do I need beyond what I saw with my own eyes. Armed men, rioting through the halls of Congress looking for people to kill in order to stop the certification.
Have you gotten to the point you don't believe your own eyes now.ARMED? No one has shot but a protester? Kill? Seems you may be incorrect or just offering a view.
But they were armed. With baseball bats, pepper spray, a fire extinguisher and a flagpole. Oh, and one had a police shield. And everyone of them had two fists as well. Wonderful weapons to topple the strongest military might the world has ever seen, isn't it?
Again, it is all in the spin and terminology. "Forget" to mention that "armed" does not mean with guns or other conventional weapons and it sounds so much better. Enough, perhaps, to convince those that don't bother to think or research that there really was an "insurrection" when it was no more than another ordinary riot, with simpler weapons than many rioters carry.I think that's probably fair. However, bombs were found around the Capitol, including Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs. In addition, the purpose of the riot, in the protestors own words, was to hang Mike Pence and potentially murder members of Congress.
What would Trump had done if the rioters had been successful and stopped the certification and murdered their intended targets?I assumed he was referring to guns. Like "armed and dangerous". My common sense tells me if there was any kind of planned insurrection they would have come armed to take over the Capitol. Bat. flag and such would not be very ineffective against the armed law enforcement.
I want to point out something very interesting, a fact. The policemen that shot and killed the woman protester that was climbing through a window (unarmed) stated --- I did not feel threatened or did I feel she threatened anyone in Congress.
"The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber. Acknowledging the tragic loss of life and offering condolences to Ms. Babbitt’s family, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Department of Justice have therefore closed the investigation into this matter." Source --- https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/depa … li-babbitt
Sad this woman was killed, and the video is very disturbing to watch. The officer just pointed at this woman, from many feet away and shot her."I assumed he was referring to guns." - Why? Are guns the only dangerous/deadly things they can carry? I suspect the 140+ police that were seriously injured would beg to disagree.
"Sad this woman was killed, and the video is very disturbing to watch. " - Did you also watch her trying to climb through a window to invade the chamber? She got what she deserved. You know as well as I do that if those insurrectionists had been black, there would have been a massacre.
"My common sense tells me if there was any kind of planned insurrection they would have come armed to take over the Capitol. " - My, my - you must not be watching/reading the real news much. There are a bunch of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are charged with just that.
Just one of many examples "According to court documents, Moerschel and others planned and participated in an operation to interfere with the certification of the electoral college vote on Jan. 6, [the definition of insurrection] and coordinated with others in advance, using websites and social media to recruit other participants before traveling to Washington. "
While the actions of the insurrectionists clearly fit the legal definition of insurrection, it can be difficult to prove, especially if the insurrectionist "say" they are defending he Constitution (even though they are violating it). It may not be charged for another reason. What they are charged with, like the one above, carries a maximum penalty much worse than that for insurrection and is much easier to prove.
But you can be sure that even if the prosecutors forgo an insurrection charge, that is exactly what happened.
As to " I did not feel threatened or did I feel she threatened anyone in Congress."- YOU will have to provide an authoritative source that he actually said that since it is completely counter-intuitive to the findings of the investigation into it. Until you can, I have to assume you are repeating a right-wing myth you heard.
Hehe, even your own quote "revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress"
Then there is this from CSIS, the Center for Strategic & International Studies:
But there is a reason that many are confident that individuals involved in the riot at the Capitol will be charged on seditious conspiracy, and potentially even insurrection. The violent threats leading up to January 6, the actions taken at the Capitol, and the continued incitement of attacks on state and federal governments demonstrate a persistent and determined assault on U.S. democracy. The charges are serious and unprecedented, but so too are the violent actions that took place.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/understan … d-sedition
As a final point, IMO only Trump needs to be charged with insurrection since part of that penalty is barring him from holding office ever again.
Thought I would post videos of Trump's peaceful protest with people walking the halls of Congress like visitors.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/09/politics … index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politi … rters.html
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politi … rters.html
https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-releases-foo … 56340.html
https://www.wral.com/justice-department … /19732942/
https://www.wral.com/justice-department … /19732942/
https://www.wndu.com/2021/06/17/graphic … urrection/
https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/
Yep, peaceful and non-violent unarmed Trump supporters, ROFLAbout the Fake AZ "audit".
"Workers sitting at tables in colorful shirts watched ballots swing by on a turntable, marking down results for the presidential and U.S. Senate contests, the two successes for Democrats on an Arizona ballot where Republicans mostly swept other races."
So, I gotta ask - why aren't they counting the votes that Republican's won??? Are they thinking the fake ballots they are looking for properly counted Republican votes but not Democratic ones?
This is [b]more proof[b] this is a highly partisan exercise to (probably unwittingly - sense they don't have very many wits to start with) help Russia, China, and Iran destabilize American democracy.
They claim to be done counting, so why haven't they issued the results? Could it be it didn't go the way they wanted it to? They have pushed off any announcement until after Labor Day. Any bets this just fades away into the sunset?
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/ar … count-ends
Here is a wonderful timeline analysis of the Maricopa voting and the subsequent fake audit.
https://tcf.org/content/report/arizona- … ng-rights/I see that one group of Trump the Terrorist enablers is dying out - the White Evangelicals. The latest broad survey on religion finds this sect on a precipitous decline from 23% in 2006 to 14.5% in 2020. In fact, religious affiliation in mainline Protestant (read moderate to liberal) and Catholic also declined significantly until 2016 and 2018, respectively.
The one group of growth are the Unaffiliated. They grew from 16% in 2006 to 25.5% in 2018, before sliding to 23.3% in 2020.
What looks like is happening is the radicalism of White Evangelicals was driving out members, mainly to Unaffiliated. Then in 2016, more started joining mainline Protestants and in 2018, some Unaffiliated were returning to the moderate/liberal Protestants.
The decline in White Evangelicals is pretty steady at .6% a year. So by 2024, that sect will be down to 12% or a loss of ~700,000 Trump voters.
It is nice to see that people are finally realizing the radical Right is not the place for them.Trump is clearly prepping his army for more terrorism and insurrection. It is a good thing so many of the most violent ones are in jail.
One telling observation - His speech at CPAC, the Trump cult, was "a rambling, vain and lie-filled speech by Trump lacked coherence and any kind of aspirational appeal, instead highlighting his characteristic cocktail of racial demagoguery, personal swipes at enemies, mountainous falsehoods and desperate trawling for personal adulation."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/12/politics … index.htmlAgain CNN -- why not just post CSpan's you tube of the speech in full. The context just matters to most.
Yes, CNN again. WHY? Because they tell the TRUTH, unlike your sources.
But here you go so you can verify the veracity of what CNN reported.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?513311-1/ … conferenceI thought it might be a useful exercise to go through the transcript to see how many of Trump's lies, including the Big Lie you defend.
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/do … -dallas-tx
Trump couldn't get 52 seconds into it without his first tall tale:
I’m thrilled to be back in the heart of Texas with the proud conservative patriots, who are courageously leading the battle to frankly save our country. - FRANKLY, the truth is everybody else is trying to save America from conservatives.
Do you feel insulted with this statement? And they (talking about mainstream media) were right, except it was totally in play for me. For me and you, actually. No, it was in play for me.
Where do I start? we will defeat the radical left,... and the critical race theorists.[i/] What he is saying here is you and he will rewrite American history. [i]...We will secure our borders. We will stop left wing cancel culture.[i/] And how about the Right-Wing Cancel Culture? [i]We will restore free speech and fair elections They [b]already are[/u] free and fair. , and we will make America great again. IS THIS TRUMP admitting he failed as president? Sounds like it to me.
I'll save this so as not to lose it to bit heaven and then continue on.A recent court case in Michigan illuminates more of the big lie. Not a single lawyer representing Trump admitted to doing any due diligence on the fraud claims they used. Those claims were frequently second and third hand accounts of supposed fraud with claims like "it appeared to be" and "what was in the bag?" sort of "evidence.
This was a RECENT case. Yet, none of the fraud lawyers had bothered to look into the claims one iota. It was merely enough that the claims were being made despite NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.
This is the kind of stuff Republicans are hanging their hats on - using to disenfranchise voters across the country, enact new laws, and overturn democracy.More from CPAC
The Big Lie 1 - Thank you. It’s true. We all won. We all won. (the election)
The Big Lie 2 - We were doing so well until the rigged election happened to come along.
Trump lies about this as well Right here in Texas we are the epicenter of a border and migration crisis unlike anything anyone has ever seen before in the history of our country. - Everyone knows it was much worse under Reagan and Bush II.
Yet another lie - At the same time, they have totally obliterated your energy industry. - Oil prices have recovered and we are producing more energy than ever.
He almost told the truth here - We ended the horrible catch and release, where we catch a criminal and release him into our country. - 1) it wasn't horrible, it was humanitarian and 2) the program didn't apply to criminals.
We stopped asylum fraud - since there was no fraud, this is a lie.
We reduced drugs pouring across our border by the highest percentage ever. - NOPE, not true either. The pandemic helped some, but they are still flowing into the US at roughly the same rate as when he took office.
We dealt a crippling blow to MS-13. - Surprisingly, that may be true.
Now he is back to lies - we built almost 500 miles of border wall, the exact wall that the border patrol wanted. - Here is the TRUTH. Trump built (and Americans paid for) a total of 452 miles of wall during his four years. Of that, only 80 miles of wall were built where none existed before.
Then there is this rambling, incoherent set of words - I thought we could use nice concrete plank. Just knock it out. They said, “Sir, we want steel, concrete, and rebar. And it has to be wired, sir. So we can all the drones the Democrat…” Remember they wanted drones? I said, “Drones are not going to stop people.” Do you remember the statement during the campaign? Two things. Everything’s obsolete like two days after they come up with it nowadays. Computers, everything obsolete. They got a better one. - Can someone please tell me what he just said?
Yet another Trump lie - You come in illegally, and we’ll also bring your mother, your father, your grandparents, your brothers, your sisters, your aunts, your uncles. Anybody else want to come in? Come on in. He just makes things up because he knows his supporters don't think through any thing he says.
I'll save this so as not to lose it to bit heaven and then continue on.Let's continue on (btw, I am only 10 minutes into his speech and look how many lies he has told to you):
Quite an imagination - We were fighting sanctuary cities, and doing very well. They’re meant for criminal aliens. That’s what they’re meant for. - No they weren't.
Oh, such a lie - Biden’s border crisis is also helping drive an unprecedented crime wave, and you see the crime wave. - What is driving the crime, among other things, is Trump's hate speech and too many guns on the street.
Disinformation equals this - The Democrats know their policies on crime are so unpopular, so radical, so crazy, they are now trying to pretend they never led the defund the police movement in the first place. Disinformation. - The Democrats didn't lead the Defund the Police so-called 'movement'. It is just like saying all Republicans are insurrectionists just because a thousand+ were.
I'll save this so as not to lose it to bit heaven and then continue on.To continue on with quotes from the serial liar at CPAC:
Trump falsely states that In New York City, crime is out of control. It’s at record levels with nobody being prosecuted except of course innocent Republicans are being prosecuted. - Another LIE. The truth is "For the month of February 2021, New York City saw continued reductions in every major index crime category with the exception of grand larceny auto. Additionally, there is a 42 percent decrease in hate crimes. However, there continues to be an uptick in anti-Asian hate crimes."
And now he LIES about the 2nd Amendment - The same far left Democrats who are defunding police are also leading an all out crusade to strip you, the law abiding citizens of America, of your God given Second Amendment rights. - Not a word of truth in that statement. Democrats ARE NOT out to strip you of anything and the 2nd Amendment is not a "God given right" - it is a James Madison given right because he is the one that penned the 2nd Amendment.
This LIE is 19 minutes into his stream of falsehoods at CPAC - The big tech election interference in 2020 was an outrageous assault upon our Republic and upon the American voter. - What can I say about that? He just made that up out of whole cloth.
Here is another funny LIE. Trump falsely says Furthermore, these big tech companies interfered with and undermined the sacred integrity of the ballot box by censoring any honest discussion of election fraud. - This is part of his Big Lie scheme. There was no "interference" because there was no fraud to speak of.
Trump often says Every time the media references the election hoax, they say the fraud is “unproven. And while there is no evidence … ” No evidence? There’s so much evidence. - Everyone has to ask "What Evidence? Neither Trump nor anybody else provided any so-called "evidence" they claimed they had. Bottom line, they LIED about that.
More LIES - They found 35,000 votes. Then they deleted in Georgia over 100,000 votes. Because they were so bad voters, - As I said, more LIES.
How about this revisionist history - The governor of Georgia and Georgia secretary of state let us down. They let us down. - The TRUTH is they protected American democracy while Trump was trying to subvert it.
More to Come.Now we are 25 minutes into Trumps stream of lies, falsehoods, and disinformation.
Can any one decipher this, it makes no sense? So I only speak the truth. So true. And the reason the Attorney General of the United States is going after Georgia is it’s so bad what they’ve done, and they’ll probably win, and that defense won’t take place. - Scratching my head trying to understand this string of unconnected sentences. He starts out with a bald-faced lie - So I only speak the truth. So true. - No he doesn't, he RARELY speaks the truth. It is true the AG is suing GA. Who is "they"? Georgia? The AG? You get the picture.
LOL, he is losing it. And now we have those brand new F-35s and everything’s brand new, and we have a great military, or it’s coming soon and they won’t be able to stop it. - No, the F-35 came under Obama's watch, I even worked a little bit on the cost analysis for the program back before I retired in from the Air Force in 2008. In fact the first F-35 was delivered in 2009. But, of course, it is not unusual for Trump to take credit for things he had no hand in. As to that last sentence - do we have a great military or not? Is he suggesting the "great military" will come under Biden's watch? No one really knows.
He LIES And there is another set of rules for law-abiding, conservative Americans, happen to be Republicans, who simply want to speak their minds and exercise their rights, like to talk about a rigged election. - Is he talking about the thousand or so conservative, Republican, Trump militia that stormed the Capitol and caused an insurrection under his leadership?
Still More to Come.
Five more rioters were identified and charged - all from the same family.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/13/politics … index.htmlHere are the takeaways from the three books coming out about Trump's last year in office (analysis by Chris Cillizza - The Point)
* Faced with a once-in-a-century public health crisis, Donald Trump not only drastically mishandled some of the basics (rapid testing for Covid-19, mask-wearing) but also actively worked to undermine public confidence in the very doctors, epidemiologists and public health experts who were working to keep Americans safe. -(I must mention that Trump did sign off on Operation Warp Speed)
* Unable to accept that he had lost the election, Trump sought to use the official powers of the government -- including the Justice Department -- to try to find non-existent evidence of fraud. He created an environment in which a large chunk of Americans believed this Big Lie about the election and then not only incited the January 6 crowd but also stood by for hours as they ransacked the Capitol.
* Trump, who repeatedly told crowds during the campaign that he had done more for Black people than any president since Abraham Lincoln, failed to grasp either the gravity or the goals of the Black Lives Matter protests. He saw the racial justice protests as nothing more than an uprising against HIM -- and tried to force the military to deploy to states where the marches were most prevalent. - In case you missed it, those goals were protesting frequent killings of black people by bad white cops and then being treated by the police leadership that Black Lives Did Not Matter.
Now, how can any rational person disagree with those obvious conclusions?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/13/politics … index.htmlNow I am giving you a chance to trash talk our top military leaders as they cement the idea that Trump fits the definition of a terrorists.
As it turns out Gen Milley, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, really though the Trump might attempt a coup with his army and had made plans to not let it happen. Or, in his on the record words "They may try, but they're not going to f**king succeed,"
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/15/politics … index.html
And this is the comment he made about Trump militia supporters "Milley told a group of senior leaders, "Here's the deal, guys: These guys are Nazis, they're boogaloo boys, they're Proud Boys. These are the same people we fought in World War II. We're going to put a ring of steel around this city and the Nazis aren't getting in."
OR
In support of my comparing Trump to Hitler, Milley viewed Trump as "the classic authoritarian leader with nothing to lose," the authors write, and he saw parallels between Adolf Hitler's rhetoric as a victim and savior and Trump's false claims of election fraud.
"This is a Reichstag moment," Milley told aides, according to the book. "The gospel of the Führer."
AND
I have made this comparison as well "Ahead of a November pro-Trump "Million MAGA March" to protest the election results, Milley told aides he feared it "could be the modern American equivalent of 'brownshirts in the streets,'" referring to the pro-Nazi militia that fueled Hitler's rise to power.
So, it is not just me thinking those things, it is the top military leadership as well.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/14/politics … index.htmlOne man, one opinion. Not interested in a book that nothing is substantiated. Very careful wording on all the accusations. Feed for people that look for dirty laundry. Myself, I don't grub around for dirt.
One man, lol. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is just "one man". I figured you would dis our military to protect your man. BTW, how do you know "nothing is substantiated"? You don't. The fact is those reporters have recordings of everything they say was said. Certainly more than you have.
It is truly amazing how Trump supporters make light of something that scared the pants off of our military leaders - the very real possibility that Trump would attempt a coup.
But I guess that should not be surprising since these people don't think an insurrection happened on Jan 6.My Man? Well, my man appointed him to his job. And Biden can replace him, and he puts his pants on like any other man or woman... They have direct quotes as they did actually use. as I said the quotes were careful wording on all the accusations. All the quotes talk about Milley's fears, doubts and he will not even at this point comment on the book...
"I said the quotes were careful wording on all the accusations. " - How do you know that?
"Well, my man appointed him to his job. " - Your point? So what?
"he will not even at this point comment on the book..." - Again, so what. You are just deflecting away from the real issue - the Joint Chiefs made plans to oppose Trump should he stage a coup as they feared. Of course many Trump supporters have said what America needs is a good coup. Are you one of those?
This Monmouth poll results show Trump and the right-wing conspiracy theorists are still a terrible danger to the health of Society and the health of our Republic through their Russian inspired disinformation campaign. (Why do conservatives keep pushing Putin's talking points about America? They must believe in the same politics that Putin does I guess.)
Anyway,
- the poll shows that a minority of Americans, 34%, have not received a vaccine (enough to keep us from herd immunity) - a public health hazard
- the poll also shows that a minority of Americans, 32%, thind Biden won fraudulently. thereby destabilizing American democracy
While both numbers are a minority, they are still sizable. They are that large because of right-wing conspiracy theories and Trump. Absent this assault by conservatives, we might be very close to herd immunity by now and Red States wouldn't be passing all of these voter suppression laws.
Here is what this poll found:
- 80% of Ds have been vaccinated
- 90% of Ds think the election was fair
- 40% of Rs have been vaccinated
- 43% of Rs think the election was fair.
Why are only 40% of Republicans vaccinated with Trump's vaccines?
Why do 57% believe in the Big Lie. Why are they so gullible?
I suspect that most of the 20% of Democrats that aren't vaccinated are Blacks who listen to the disinformation about things like the Tuskegee experimentTrump supporter destabilizes American democracy even further by Falsely claiming 74,000 Maricopa ballots shouldn't be counted. Either on purpose or because of gross incompetence the Fake AZ so-called audit compared two unrelated lists prepared for political parties (i.e. not really used in the counting process) and concluded that 74,000 names that did not appear on both lists were probably illegally cast.
He either didn't know or ignored the fact that many names of voters which appear on one list should not have appeared on the other. If they did, something would be wrong.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/18/politics … index.htmlThe first of Trump's militia to be charged with a felony for his part of the insurrection was sentenced to eight months in jail; DOJ had asked for 16 months.
The judge said he was lenient because the felon pled guilty very early in the process, was not in the Senate chamber very long, and was not violent.
The judge also said - "He was staking a claim on the floor of the United States Senate, not with the American flag but with a flag declaring his loyalty to a single individual over the entire nation," So don't tell me this guy invaded the Capitol for America. He didn't, he did it for Trump.
The judge also said this - "When a mob is prepared to attack the Capitol to prevent elected officials from both parties from performing their constitutional and statutory duty, democracy is in trouble ... the damage that they caused that day is way beyond the delays that day. It is a damage that will persist in this country for decades." - Trump supporters, including the commenters in this forum, simply do not understand the concept Judge Moss laid out so clearly. That is why Trump is so dangerous to American Democracy.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/19/politics … index.htmlHere is another way Trump Supporters are destabilizing our democracy - Threatening Election Officials.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/21/politics … index.htmlThe headline to this analysis-opinion piece is Trump and the GOP spin fantasies to hide his crimes against the Constitution. In it they speak the TRUTH and talk about the RINO whitewashing of the insurrection. They point out Trump' insanity and separation from reality with quotes like this - "They were ushered in by the police. The Capitol police were very friendly," Trump told the reporters, referring to the sacking of Congress and assaults on police officers by his supporters.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/politics … index.htmlTrump's insanity and detachment from reality on full display. Listen to his audio sounding like a drunk Nixon (except Trump doesn't drink)
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … 60-vpx.cnn
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … 60-vpx.cnnYet another of Trump's peaceful, loving insurrectionist arrested, this time for violently whipping police with a metal whip.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/23/politics … index.htmlIt is clear that Trump is delusiona l (as his latest rally proves). It is clear that these delusion present a clear and present danger to American society (so says the intelligence community).
Wouldn't it then make sense that he be detained and placed in a mental hospital for his and our own good?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/25/politics … index.html
As evidence of that danger is the fact that SO MANY of RINO candidates are tying themselves to Trump's delusion and coming up with these illogical and insane statements like
Even though Trump won Oklahoma with 65.4 percent of the vote, Lahmeyer says he's concerned: "Do I believe there was voter fraud in Oklahoma in 2020? Yes," he told CNN, after visiting Arizona. "I believe there was voter fraud in all 50 states ... Who could possibly believe the idea there were 80 million votes for Joe Biden?"
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/23/politics … index.htmlHow much more unhinged and crazy can Donald Trump become after this incoherent rant:
"The county has, for whatever reason, also refused to produce the network routers. We want the routers, Sonny, Wendy, we got to get those routers, please. The routers. Come on, Kelly, we can get those routers. Those routers. You know what? We're so beyond the routers, there's so many fraudulent votes without the routers. But if you got those routers, what that will show, and they don't want to give up the routers. They don't want to give them. They are fighting like hell. Why are these commissioners fighting not to give the routers?"
Say What?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/26/politics … index.htmlTrump supporters - please try to square your belief that the Capitol insurrection was a nothing-burger with this officers claim he thought the insurrectionist's were trying to kill him. Do you think he his making his story up and the video of it is fake?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/07/2 … x-lead.cnnTestimony for injured Metropolitan and Capitol police calls the "defund the police" faction of RINOs whitewashing of the Capitol insurrection disgraceful
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/27/politics … index.htmlInteresting that your link indicates that every minute of the day in the White House will be investigated. That the opening ceremony was about the "harrowing" stories from police (pure sensationalism without any facts over causes), with opinions from cops that had and still have no solid information. That there is no indication that previous riots played a part at all. That there is no indication that the actions of security or the House members played a part.
In other words, the ONLY thing to be investigated is what Trump did or said - nothing else matters. Yet it is not a some kind of "political game" in spite of looking at nothing but Trump's actions."Interesting that your link indicates that every minute of the day in the White House will be investigated. " - As it should be. Who knew what? When did they know it? What actions did they take?
"harrowing" - Obviously that means you think the police were lying about how bad it was for you to make fun of how serious it actually was.
"s that every minute of the day in the White House will be investigated. That the opening ceremony was about the "harrowing" stories from police (pure sensationalism without any facts over causes)" - This is pure obtuse disingenuousness, one of your interesting characterizes. OF COURSE, there was no facts over causes. Why? Because they wanted to put the result of the insurrection on full display and get how terrible it was on the record.
"and still have no solid information." - More obtuseness and not even correct. They got it on the record that the terrorists believed that "Trump sent the terrorist there".
"That there is no indication that previous riots played a part at all. " - what relevance is there other than to deflect from the insurrection? DUH
"That there is no indication that the actions of security or the House members played a part." - PLAYED apart in what? Gather all those Trump supporters there and egging them on to violence? (Although I assume testimony will be resented about a least one House members role in fomenting the insurrection.)
"In other words, the ONLY thing to be investigated is what Trump did or said - nothing else matters. " - ONCE AGAIN Duh! They are looking for the cause of what happened. It is clear Trump caused it so why shouldn't they be looking at Trump. He instigated it all with his [b}Big Lie[/b].
That said, if they miraculously stumble on a different reason for the insurrection, then they should pursue that - but don't hold your breath.
Bottom line, Trump used violence for a political end to disrupt the function of government. The definition of a terrorist."Obviously that means you think the police were lying about how bad it was for you to make fun of how serious it actually was."
No - obviously it means that the objective was to raise an emotional response rather than something factual. Political posturing rather than a search for facts.
"OF COURSE, there was no facts over causes."
But there ARE facts over causes. A summer of rioting for a background, refusal to provide adequate protection in the forum of national guard when cautioned about what was about to go down. But neither incriminates Trump so it will not be mentioned.
"More obtuseness and not even correct. They got it on the record that the terrorists believed that "Trump sent the terrorist there".
Which means absolutely nothing - what people believe has nothing to do with reality. Take a look at religion for the biggest example in the history of the world.
"what relevance is there other than to deflect from the insurrection? DUH"
I'm truly sorry that you cannot (or will not) recognize what months of rioting without repercussions will do to willingness to violate the law. Most of us DO recognize that.
"PLAYED apart in what?"
In encouraging the riot (no repercussions, no reason not to). Plus using a security force much too small played a huge part as well - had the capital been ringed with 1000 national guard it would not have happened. Once more, unfortunately, it does not incriminate Trump so will not be discussed.
"It is clear Trump caused it"
And there you said it. The cause is known (at least to the committee composed only of Trump haters), so no reason to look at anything else.
Bottom line: this "investigation" is no more than the other ones about Trump. A witch hunt to preclude his running in the next election. A political ploy, then, and it is emphasized by the makeup of the committee Pelosi allowed to form. Only those already convinced were allowed to participate - anyone willing to look at anything but Trump was kicked off before it even began. Just as you say - the "investigation" is not about finding causes, it is about hanging Trump.
More evidence that another Trump inspired insurrection is on its way.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/28/politics … index.htmlBased on the recent revelations that Trump told the Justice Department to say the election was corrupt and he would take care of the rest, yet of all people, Bill Barr knew it was all b.s., Trump should be tried for treason. He tried to execute a coup and overthrow an election and is still trying to this day.
If so then we’d have to try Biden for his ignorance and treason
Lol. I would be a hypocrite if suggested prison for him into a world record amongst jails already too crowded.
He is closer to a mental hospital for old folks home puppeted by far worst terrorist strings.
Just lead your own feelings and thoughts. A-hole$ go away better when we ignore them more.He is not operating under the guidance of himself, but others too numerous to mention, or know. Someday he will be dead and gone and all we have is hologram of him. How many would be okay with that unreal reality, I wonder?
LOL!
He makes a great dummy for the powers to be.
The walking dead are easier to control yet, too cruel to put him in a nursing home, covid is most deadly there.
I don’t know. Can any democrat who advocated violence and/or bailed out rioters be tried for treason?
Is the witch hunt going to work all ways or are you just not over the orange man bad mania?Well, since protesters aren't terrorists ... and protesters weren't advocating bringing democracy to its knees ... Does that answer your question?
What Democrats advocated anybody to march to the Capitol and stop its functioning (insurrection)? I know of none.
I know at least four RINOs who did - Trump, one of Trump's sons, Giuliani, and Brooks.
What Democrats told protesters to get violent?
Which Democrat said "we will have trial by combat" to a riled up crowd who was ordered to march on the Capitol? (But Giuliani did)
Which Democrat said "“today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass,” " to a riled up crowd who Trump ordered to march on the Capitol to stop the certification of an election? (But Mo Brooks did)
When is Trump going to stop being a clear and present danger to democracy in America? That is when I will get over that crazy person with a big mouth which way too many Americans consider God.
NO Democrat advocated an insurrection or even violence at a protest.The US military Complex kills a million or millions a year. Lock them all up for treason and genocide.
Your more likely to be killed by a baby with a weapon than a terrorist.
Originally, there were no term limits for the president. Madison believed that a president who wanted to be reelected should be able to continue with his aspirations and plans as long as the people wanted him in office.
That is true, until one did (Roosevelt) and conservatives pushed through the 22nd Amendment (I think I said 29th earlier and forgot to check). Now, Netanyahu is calling that fascist.
I wonder if Madison had been aware of Trump, he would still hold that opinion. One of his biggest fears he wrote about and which consumed many hours of debate during the Constitutional Convention was how to prevent demagogues like Trump from getting elected in the first place. They hoped the electoral college (the way they designed it) would do the trick. Clearly it didn't.
CNN, come on, not many would trust CNN to do any form of a poll. CNN can't be trusted in any respect.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/31/cnn- … fake-news/Only Trump supporters say that about CNN and that is because CNN won't lie about things like Fox does. The rest of the world, not just America, trusts CNN much more than Fox. This is from a recent study I found. In the list that included CNN and Fox, they provided a "Reliability Score" and a "Bias Score. The higher the Reliability Score is, the more accurate the information provided is. For the Bias rating, the more Positive the rating, the more the source is biased to the Right. The more Negative the rating, the bias goes to the Left. A near zero rating means the source is relatively unbiased.
Highest Reliability: AP at 51.98 (bias is -1.06)
CNN Reliability: 42.22 (bias is -5.69)
Fox News Reliability: 26.76 (bias is +15.31)
Lowest Reliability: World Truth TV at 7.41 (bias at +8.48)
Most Conservative Bias: American Thinker at 29.82
Most Liberal Bias: Wonkette at -31.15
While not the most reliable, CNN ranks up near the top and is relatively unbiased while Fox News is rated much, much lower and is very biased.
BTW, the Daily Caller scores a lowish 23.93 in reliability, worse than Fox News, an very biased to the Right with 20.06. Consequently, I wouldn't trust them at all.
https://techpresident.com/unbiased-news-sources/
FURTHER - CNN doesn't conduct polls, they hire somebody to do it (just like Fox News does). That is why both CNN (with a B rating) and Fox (with an A or A/B rating, depending on which pollster they use) polls are trusted.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
FURTHER STILL - If you hadn't succumbed to a knee-jerk reaction and actually read the article, you would have found that CNN didn't conduct the poll. Rather "The research was conducted by the Democracy Fund, a nonpartisan foundation that studies voter attitudes toward democratic institutions and works to strengthen democracy in the US."I never mentioned bias... I inferred they lack credibility, which I offered just a few examples of the reports they had to retract. Their ratings are in the tank.
June 2021 --- Fox News Tops Cable News Ratings in May as CNN Loses Half of Key Demo Viewership https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fox … 02050.html
https://www.carolinacoastonline.com/nat … 2a2ed.html
https://www.thewrap.com/may-cable-news- … c-fox-cnn/
https://www.thewrap.com/cable-news-rati … primetime/You offer self-serving anecdotes while I offer a broad survey. Which is to be believed? Biased anecdotes or an unbiased survey?
There is another huge difference. While CNN and all other outlets make mistakes, they admit to them and retract them. Fox and the resto of the right-wing propaganda outlets outright lie to your face and when caught, double down. Trump was a great inspiration for that and the Trump supporters enable it while eating it up.It is rare that Fox has needed to retract a report. They as a rule present facts backed by facts. They stick to facts, and not hyperbolic reports that are well twisted out of context. I am very fact-based, and I find CNN not only bias at what they pick to report, but much of the time dishonest.
It is clear by some of your posts that you do not look for facts. In this very thread, you go on and on about statements you claim Trump made, and have no actual proof. You do realize any and all of Trump's speeches are available on Cspan. Which is a very reputable outlet. You are picking up innuendos from biased news outlets. This is a problem when it comes to proving facts. You are being told what to believe, not what the facts reveal
This thread is a perfect example of the problem that is occurring due to fake news. You continue to believe and perpetuate falsehoods.
Even the articles you provided, yes make accusations, but no do not prove the accusations they are pushing.
You need to present proof of the statements you claim Trump made. As I said Trump's speeches are available in their entirety."It is rare that Fox has needed to retract a report. " - LOL
I gave you a few links that backed my opinion on CNN --- Fact
Could you offer up a list of Fox retractions, as I did on CNN's many serious retractions on fake news? Fake news that many have their teeth in and won't let go of it?
By the way --- I have not noted CNN covering Biden's speech yesterday where he used a tone of strange whispering, and telling an out-and-out lie. He claimed "I wrote the bill on the environment"... He has not written a bill since 2008.
I am thankful so many other media outlets pointed out his confusing behavior. This is no longer a fact the media or most of the media is willing to hide.You apparently missed my point, when CNN makes a mistake, they own up to it. Fox, on the other hand, will not own up to any of their mistakes or outright lies. They take the Trump approach and double down on their misinformation. Obviously, that is why I can't offer you any Fox retractions while you offer ones CNN made. Bottom line, Fox is dishonest and CNN is honest.
And why do you keep doing the Trumpian thing of making fun of the way other people talk yet stay absolutely silent when Trump frequently stands up there making no sense whatsoever. As to the "environment" thing, you should be red in the face with shame for not telling the truth about that. YES, Biden did write environmental bills when he was in the Senate.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … ress-hist/I would think the facts show that Fox is most honest they have very few reports on record that they needed to retract. Also, CNN is doing so poorly in the ratings, would this not indicate they have lost the trust of media viewers.
But Old Joe seems not to know what year it is ... His statement was very clear --- " I wrote the bill on the environment"... He wrote a bill in 1987. The bill is not relevant for him to support. Biden has not written a Bill since 2008. His comment did not make sense in any respect.
I actually posted a thread on this very subject today.Again, the fact that Fox refuses to publish any retractions of their outright lies or misstatements has no bearing on whether they make them or not. It just shows they are dishonest since everybody makes mistakes. But in Fox's case, not to mention Britebart and OAN, they lie to the public - on purpose.
"Fox News has been described by academics, media figures, political figures, and watchdog groups as being biased in favor of the Republican Party in its news coverage,[1][2][3][4] as perpetuating conservative bias,[5] and as misleading their audience in relation to science, notably climate change.[6][7][8][9]" - and
"After Trump's defeat in the 2020 presidential election, Fox News promoted baseless allegations that voting machine company Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems had conspired to rig the election for Joe Biden. Hosts Jeanine Pirro, Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo promoted the allegations on their programs on sister network Fox Business. In December 2020, Smartmatic sent a letter to Fox News demanding retractions and threatening legal action.[205] However, Pirro, Dobbs, and Bartiromo refused to issue retractions as they played a three-minute video segment consisting of an interview with an election technology expert who refuted the allegations promoted by the hosts, responding to questions from an unseen and unidentified man. In February 2021, Smartmatic filed a $2.7 billion defamation suit against the network and the three hosts. On March 26, 2021, Dominion filed a $1.6 billion defamation suit against the network.[206] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies
As to ratings, yes, CNN is down, a lot. But then so is Fox and MSNBC, just not quite as much. In fact, in the 25 - 54 demographic, MSNBC fell less than Fox. You also forget that Fox has almost no other outlet to share its viewership with while CNN must compete with a lot of other honest networks. So no, CNN's lower ratings don't reflect a lost of trust. The fact is, every survey of these things puts Fox much less trustworthy than CNN or any of the other major truthful networks.
Who has been the biggest loser? Cable News in general.
"His statement was very clear --- " I wrote the bill on the environment"... He wrote a bill in 1987." - Why are you contradicting yourself?? Did he write a bill or not? Clearly, he did.Why in the hell would he bring up a failed bill that he wrote 34 years ago. He seems to flow off to another time, he does that frequently. The point is there was no real context to even bring up the subject. He seems to be growing more and more confused, his demeanor is often inappropriate. The crazy whispering, not to mention the crazy eyes... he goes from a flat tone, to a whisper, to an angry voice. He is not able to control his thoughts enough to be appropriate. He is a very confused man. I for one would like to see his mentation assessed, and I would like to know if he takes any drugs that are commonly given for psychological problems such as dementia.
As I said I posted a thread on Joe'slatest antic --- the whispering and the fact he brought up a bill he offered in 1987. My point, his bill failed, and it would seem odd that he would even state "I wrote THE BILL on the environment. Who the hell cares about a failed bill from 1987. It appeared he had flowed back to another day, another time.
"The Delaware senator’s first climate change bill, introduced in 1986, died in the Senate. But the following year a version of Biden’s legislation survived as an amendment to a State Department funding bill. President Ronald Reagan went on to sign it into law.""My point, his bill failed, and it would seem odd that he would even state "I wrote THE BILL on the environment. " - Apparently, I need to correct you again - with you own quote - "The Delaware senator’s first climate change bill, introduced in 1986, died in the Senate (I am guessing because conservatives are opposed to doing anything about the climate). But the following year a version of Biden’s legislation survived as an amendment to a State Department funding bill. President Ronald Reagan went on to sign it into law."
Your BDS is showing when you talk about Trump like this "The crazy whispering, not to mention the crazy eyes... he goes from a flat tone, to a whisper, to an angry voice. He is not able to control his thoughts enough to be appropriate. He is a very confused man." and think you are talking about Biden, LOL And by trying to ridicule people for the way they look or sound is very Trumpian - you learned well.
The articles I provided give testimony from the people Trump was directing his comments. It is their testimony in court that will, in part, put him away for leading an insurrection.
I am appalled somebody should think that Donald Trump the ex-president is a terrorist. There are pages being written about it and I wonder if these people were writing all these pages really know what terrorism is? I have taken part in counterterrorism operations and I know what terrorism is. It is not just a definition. Labeling Donald Trump as a terrorist does no good to the American image all over the world and this is a sign of desperation and the end of the American domination of the world. Some people who labeled the ex-president as a terrorist? well, what can you say about it?
"I am appalled somebody should think that Donald Trump the ex-president is a terrorist." - WHY? If the shoe fits.
"Donald Trump as a terrorist does no good to the American image all over the world " - It shows the world that we are realists and are willing to clean our own house.Kind of the point; the shoe only fits if the definition of terrorism is changed. In other words, if the word is nothing but a label without connection to the real world.
Much like the label "assault rifle" that is used to indicate an ordinary rifle that has been painted black. Useful in stirring emotions but not in producing facts.How was the definition of terrorism changed might I asked? I quoted the legal definition and the shoe fits.
Same with a weapon of war, and it doesn't make any difference what color it was painted. The ONLY purpose of the assault rifle of choice is to kill as many people as possible in as short a period of time as possible. And as we keep seeing so many times each year, it does just that.
One thing good about American democracy is that if a maverick goes around shouting that Trump is a terrorist, the world doesn't listen. The Americans are lucky that real terrorism practiced by the extremist Islamists in Europe and Pakistan has not reached America. Terrorism is like in the Rawalpindi school building when over 200 children were massacred. Calling trump a terrorist is a travesty of the word when the total number of persons killed in the Capitol Hill incident was just I think three. However, nobody can stop a man from stating what he feels is right but right-thinking people have to listen and just shrug their shoulders and forget about such comments. Repeat Trump was never a terrorist and nobody can call him one and just by stating in a paragraph doesn't mean he's a terrorist.
Very well put. In my view, n America, we have a segment of our society that fully has tendencies to become very hyper and add labels that are not appropriate to those they disagree with. They jump before knowing facts, and in most cases, facts don't matter anyway. This kind of hyperbolic thought process is IMO, non-sensical, and causes division. This is obviously a problem we are suffering from in America.
Sensationalism is alive and well here. Headlines are all that matters, and they must be over the top to grab attention.
Headlines that support TDS that is. Otherwise, anything about Biden's great blunders is ignored. And boy oh boy is Biden on a roll...
Biden is absolutely ignoring any and all problems that are building up and just causing many unnecessary problems.
Firstly, I have studied law and secondly, legal jargon is open to interpretation. There have been cases when dissenting judgments have been given when the evidence is the same. Coming to what you are stating that Donald Trump can try as a terrorist is simply preposterous. Such statements emanating from America are making it a laughingstock in the world. Terrorism is not just a definition it also leads to an end result. In the 21st-century the only terrorist movements which have been recognized by the United Nations are mainly the Islamic movements. Thus we have the adage that all Muslims are definitely not Terrorists but 98% of terrorists arrested are Muslim adherents. One can go through the figures on the Internet. To classify Donald Trump as a terrorist means equating him with the vast number of terrorists who are killing school children, carrying out beheadings, and setting up suicide bombers. The law demands that one should be rational and not make accusations for the sake of making accusations. Honestly, I have a feeling that many people who are accusing Donald Trump is a terrorist is just passing the time, It is a good discussion to laugh off.
Similarly to "assault rifle" and "racist", "terrorist" has come to mean no more than "I don't like him". A method of denigrating someone with no more meaning than that the speaker doesn't like the person. Certainly it has zero to do with the actual historical meaning, legal or otherwise, of the word.
And I have studied law as well and prosecuted 67 cases for the Army (you don't have to be a lawyer to do that for most Courts Martials.
By definition a terrorist is a person who uses violence or the threat of violence for political purposes. Now you may have made up a different definition to fit your personal perception, but I use the legal definition. More formally, it is
"Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)."
Let me ask you this. Do you consider Putin a terrorist ? Do you consider Un a terrorist? How about Xi? Do you consider Maduro a terrorist? I do in all those cases.
The fact they personally don't behead anybody or send out suicide bombers doesn't make them any less a terrorist if they use violence to gain a political end.
Putin has political opponents poisoned. Un shoots his political opponents with bazookas, or something like that. Xi imprisons, tortures, and murders Muslims. Trump sends rabid followers to take over the Capitol where many people died and were injured.
The only difference I see is the level of violence. So, I am being rational and I am not making accusations for the sake of making accusations.
BTW, why didn't you mention American domestic terrorists such as the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the 3 percenters, as being recognized as such.Doesn't your definition make the US a terrorist nation during WWII, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan and every other war we've ever fought, right from the War of Independence? Not a single one of those opponents had laws that gave the US the right to do what we did, and our purpose was always to change the politics of our enemies.
Actually, No. All those are wars conducted, for the most part, against armed combatants.
Now I am sure you will point out American atrocities like Mai Lai and I will respond that that was an individual act of terrorism not authorized by the Army. In fact the Army prosecuted them even though conservatives loudly came to the lieutenants defense.
Then you might mention the drone attacks that happen to unfortunately kill civilians. I will respond we did our best NOT to kill civilians AND that THEY were not the TARGETS - therefore not terrorism.
I am surprised you missed your chance of being correct by not bringing up conservative slavery in America or our genocide against Native Americans. To me, those clearly meet the standards of national terrorism, let alone individual terrorist acts.
That is the way great empires function. What did the Ottoman Empire and Mughal empire do? for that matter the British and now the Chinese. 100,000 Uighur Muslims in concentration camps. The US did better.
Was "the US did better" sarcasm? If so, then you would be right as I pointed out to Wilderness.
Another thing I have observed is that all the so-called terrorists you have mentioned are non-Muslims. You are really selective. Even in Pakistan all the terrorists being tried and tens on death row are Muslims. Why not go through the statistics and see the percentage of Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist terrorists vs others? Figures don't lie. In any case, I m withdrawing from this discussion. best of luck
No, it seems to me you are the one being selective by limiting terrorism to only Muslims. All I was doing is pointing out they don't have a monopoly on it.
How about you check out a speech that is more relevant to today. The ridiculous race-baiting speech Biden offered up yesterday. referring to Republicans as civil war confederates. And comparing Texas's new proposed voting laws as big a threat as the Civil war. He should be kept inside under lock and key at this point. I realize what a hard time you are having moving on from Trump. But it's time to wake up to the fact we have a very confused man in the White House that is an embracement to the Country. It is becoming more and more evident that he needs to be removed from office due to his worsening mental state.
Fox News is pretty much the only network that is reporting on Biden's failing mental status. hard not to be concerned when he continually appears very unhinged and confused always searching for words...
Such a very confused man... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCy4eUmlmFA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEucxkTUG2cTucker explained: "Aging improves him!"
He will be 86 the next election ... and even more empty headed.
I guess an "easily controlled' leader is what the people wanted this time around ...
judging by the very fair election results.Tucker explained: "Aging improves him!"
He will be 86 the next election ... and even more empty headed.
I guess an easily controlled leader is what the people wanted this time around ...
judging by the very fair election results.
Q. What promotes elections which reveal the TRUE will of the CITIZENRY?Q. What promotes elections which reveal the TRUE will of the CITIZENRY?
I'm sure there's exaggeration about the laws. However, what is not in dispute is that the Republican measures being passed around the country are anti-democratic. They unfairly disenfranchise Democratic voters. They put elections in the hands of partisan officials.
And Trump's speech is quite relevant. You're talking about the likely Republican nominee for President in 2024. He's the most anti-American, anti-Democratic president we've ever had. But apparently, a great swath of Americans want an authoritarian leader. We're not going to be a Democracy for too much longer at this rate."They unfairly disenfranchise Democratic voters. They put elections in the hands of partisan officials."
I can't converse on all the different newly proposed state voting laws. I have only read the Georgia bill. I can honestly say I found nothing discriminatory in the new laws, I found the opposite. They seemed to make things much easier for all voters. They never had drop boxes, and now will, and the food and water thing seem good, one can have food and water 150 feet from the polling machines. They have longer hours and better weekend hours. yes, they will be requiring IDs but offer all free IDS.
The voting laws have always been in the hands of the legislators of each state. I believe this has worked very well up until this last election. It was clear many states needed to change some of the voting laws that are not as fair as could be. Some of the very worst voting laws are in Delaware, New York, and a few other blue states. I would think more citizens in those states would be upset some have no dropboxes, no early voting, or very little early voting.
Georgia needed to change their laws, they were in some ways unfair, and they have. And look what it has turned into.
Maybe we all should cool down a bit, and really have a look at voting laws in our own states, and compare them to the new laws that are being talked about. I think most of us would be surprised at our own laws in how they compare to the new laws of Georgia. Now, this is just my opinion, but I truly think this is all political and the media is stirring up a big old mess, that has no real truth to it.
I hope the Supreme Court will have a long look at the AG Garlands case, and I trust them to rule if they see discrimination in the Georgia laws.
I know we feel very differently about Trump, so it would seem anti-productive to go there.The changes in the laws in Georgia are specifically targeted at Atlanta, which is overwhelmingly Democrats.
That said, please remember that I support voter ID. So I'm not opposed to making certain changes that will encourage confidence in voting.
The places where the supposed fraud occurred where all controlled by Republicans and Republican officials made the calls about the validity of the elections. Then they recounted and audited all the votes two or three times. Still, apparently not good enough.
Look at the recent case in Michigan brought by Trump's lawyers. The judge asked them if they had done any due diligence on the so-called fraud claims they used to bring the cases. None of them had.I am not aware of the Michigan case, but I will take your word. I did follow some of Trump's lawsuits just after the elections, and I did note Judges that said the same and tossed the case out for being poorly prepared or in some cases filed in the wrong court.
Yes, It seems the Republicans in Georgia did hold their own and claimed after each recount no little fraud was found.
In my view, Georgia should have not changed their voting laws, their officials did not use good sense. It only worked to make a big old mess.
So let's look at just GA, granted it is nowhere near as bad as Texas.
You said "They never had drop boxes," - I guess it depends on your time frame. Did GA have drop boxes in 2018? No. Did they have them in 2020? Yes. Where they used in 2020? Yes, a lot by Democratic voters. Did GA restrict their use in 2022? YES - thereby making it harder for Democrats to vote.
The state’s new voting law, passed by the Republican majority of the General Assembly, limits the availability of the boxes in future elections, especially in Democratic areas where voters relied on drop boxes. So, I guess you are wrong, it is NOT EASIER.
In fact, they made drop boxes mute because of the restrictions on where they can be placed and the hours of access. If somebody wants to use a drop box now, they might as well just hand it to the election official who is present, why bother with the box? That is much Harder than Easier.
You say "Georgia needed to change their laws, they were in some ways unfair," - WHY did they NEED to change their laws, the election was essentially [fraud free[/u]. You CLAIM it was in some ways unfair. HOW? Because they made it easier to vote in 2020? How is that unfair?
Other restrictions that make it Harder to Vote.
1. The law shorten's the timeline on when you can request an absentee ballot from 180 days to 79 days. WHY? It makes it harder on everybody including election officials.
2. State officials are now prohibited from sending out ballot request forms unsolicited. WHY? What purpose is served? This will make it Harder to vote.
3. It puts partisan Republicans in charge of the State Election Board and the Board can get rid of local election officials they don't like (which I think they have already done in Atlanta.)
I would ask you kindly to have a look at Delaware's current voting laws. The actual fact is that they never used drop boxes prior to the COVID crisis, and so far will not be using them again unless they change the law. They require ID to vote and do not mail out mail-in ballots unless one fills out an absentee voting request. The hours to vote are very poor and inconvenient to anyone that works. By law one can be arrested for being caught handing out any form of free anything... I could go on and on.
If one was to compare Georgia's new laws one might just reverse all of the above... I ask you to have an open mind and just check out the true facts, many states have the same laws as Delaware, and no one is brought lawsuits against these states. Should you not at least question why? I feel this entire mess is a political stunt. https://elections.delaware.gov/information/law.shtml
Gosh, facts are out there, we need to really have a look at some of these other state laws before claiming Georgia's laws are definitory.
In my view, none of the states set out to discriminate. Just my opinion"I would ask you kindly to have a look at Delaware's current voting laws." - AND I would ask you to review the laws Delaware is passing.
https://www.delawareonline.com/story/ne … 818801001/
Mental faculties diminish in everyone over about 70, so probably best not to take anyone over 70 seriously. In fact, we have a voting age - 18. Perhaps once somebody reaches the age of 71, they should no longer be able to vote since we know their mental acuity declines.
Well, in some cases you are correct, just think how many would need to vacate Washington. I am not for discriminating due to age, but I certainly would be for the cognitive tests for some jobs. Job's that give the worker authority for the safety of others or the well beings of others. Actually, cognitive skills start declining in ones 40's. Some studies show it began as early as in one's 20's.
I also can say as a nurse, it's very easy to spot a decline in cognitive skills. Just my opinion.
How they communicate is number one. If one becomes angry due to not being able to come up with a proper word or just rambles off subject or needs notes to read to answer questions, it may be time for a cognitive test.A mental stability test is something Trump should have been given prior to assuming the job. If they had, we wouldn't be in such a poor state of afffairs today.
Thought you would be interested in this --- I know how you like to keep up on investigations and feel Congress has full right to investigate. We now have this ---
GOP seeking White House documents on Biden family members trying to 'profit off the presidency'
House Republicans probe Hunter Biden's art deal and other Biden family business ventures... It would appear the GOP is hunting for pay-for-play scams. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/gop … 06635.html
And yikes then there is today's polls ---- The latest figures include 28% who Strongly Approve of the job Biden is doing and 40% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12. (see trends)"GOP seeking White House documents on Biden family members trying to 'profit off the presidency'" - They can do anything they want, but until they have something akin to the Trump nepotism, I am not going to get to excited.
Does Hunter's art sale have a "potential" for taint? Maybe. The former White House ethics official raises some interesting points. But then he can raise the same points about ANYTHING Hunter does to make money.
If they pursue it, they will need go to court with real evidence of wrong doing, which of course they do not have. Their evidence will be as real as the fake fraud evidence they claimed to have but really didn't.
So, Republicans, have at it and you will end up with more egg on your face for being totally petty.
That said, if they actually find some "pay-to-play" then the people doing it ought to be held accountable. But I suspect, this will end up like Trump's Big Lie
Your poll must be that Republican Rasmussen poll. I looked at the averages and Biden is still at a steady 52%Thursday, July 15, 2021
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, for Thursday shows that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Biden’s job performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove.
The latest figures include 29% who Strongly Approve of the job Biden is doing and 41% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12. (see trends)
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public … ack_july15
"How about you check out a speech that is more relevant to today." - AND HOW is his speech a month or so ago not relevant to today? It just keeps proving how delusional he and his supporters are.
And this is still true about him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNXgjnBpxGIToo much going on currently to be talking about a past president. I realize you don't seem to be able to digest all the current messes Biden has the country in. But I have a great interest in keeping my eye on the very confused man sitting in the White House. I think anyone that voted for this poor soul should be ashamed.
I haven't noticed very many "messes". As to voting, remember you voted for and support whatever this is - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNXgjnBpxGI
The book does not quote Milley -- "Rucker and Leonnig interviewed more than 140 sources for the book, though most were given anonymity to speak candidly to reconstruct events and dialogue. "
Milley was not interviewed for this book. at all. And he has not commented on its contents. Again the CNN report has provided a sentence here and there with no context to the actual deminer of these hyperbolic unsubstantiated sentences.
We have no proof that Milley made or was even considering any form of plans to oppose Trump.
The book is not out yet, I am sure when it comes out the context of the anonymous statement will become more clear.
Trump offered a statement on the book ---
"I never threatened, or spoke about, to anyone, a coup of our Government," Trump wrote in his statement, adding, "So ridiculous!"
One could assume if Milley had information that the president was planning a coup Milley had the responsibility to report this to Congress. So, it would appear if he truly had these feelings as this book reports, he was negligent in his duty.
I think he needs to clarify the accusations in the book. Perhaps he will when it comes out next week. He certainly is walking a fine line."The book does not quote Milley " -- It took awhile, but I finally found this from The Guardian - "“The gospel of the Führer,” the authors quote Milley as saying."
"Milley was not interviewed for this book. at all. " - What is your source for that claim?
"We have no proof that Milley made or was even considering any form of plans to oppose Trump." - IT IS all on tape.
"The book is not out yet, I am sure when it comes out the context of the anonymous statement will become more clear." - I am sure it will and then how will you spin what it reports?
"One could assume if Milley had information that the president was planning a coup Milley had the responsibility to report this to Congress. " - WHERE did you come up with the idea that Milley had such information? Not from what has been reported so far. Without your twist, what WAS reported is that Gen Milley was "very worried" that Trump might do something and made plans to obstruct it.
Do you even keep up with current events? Seems odd how you dwell on Trump. Almost like you have an obsession.
It is clear you don't since Trump's anti-democratic bad actions are major news everyday, including his recent CPAC speech which I am quoting from.. But then you don't listen or read anything that would dare criticize Trump.
It is very noticeable that you don't criticize Trump's lies - How come?
Related Discussions
- 171
Has Donald Trump Killed the So-Called Republican Party?
by Scott Belford 9 months ago
In my opinion, yes - the Republican Party no-longer exists today even though Trump followers incorrectly refer to themselves as Republicans.Let me open this discussion with a short tutorial of the Republican Party (now keep in mind, the Party title has no bearing on the Party philosophy and any...
- 84
Could CNN Exonerate President Donald Trump?
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
It seems that the speech of President Donald Trump may not have been the cause for the protest at the Capital. Of all places, CNN broke a story that is was actually planned BEFORE the speech took place. Could CNN have accidentally committed an act of journalism?"Investigators...
- 63
Trump and Disqualification Under the 14th Amendment
by J Conn 3 weeks ago
A Florida attorney has filed suit to disqualify Trump from the ballot in his state under the terms of the 14th Amendment.Multiple legal scholars have already written articles supporting the theory, including numerous conservatives.Florida: https://electionlawblog.org/?p=138421Conservative...
- 478
Has Donald Trump done more for Christians than anyone?
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 4 years ago
Has he done more than Jesus Christ?Has he done more than Paul?Whom does he compare with?He said"Well they're going to show up for me because nobody's done more for Christians or evangelicals or frankly religion than I have. You've seen all the things that we've passed including the Johnson...
- 90
President Donald Trump Again?
by Miebakagh Fiberesima 6 weeks ago
Despite all the socio-political questions hanging about, how would you picture former president Donald Trump, as a potential candidate in the 2024 piesidentialrace? Can he make it again? Will the GOP give him a second chance?
- 87
Attempted Assassination: TRUMP Security Steps In to Take The HIT in OH
by Susie Lehto 7 years ago
He was sweating bullets after that attack. Trump used humor after the attempt to calm the crowd down. Scary moment! Donald Trump Has Close Call in Dayton, Secret Service Steps in to Protect - they were ready to take a bullet for Trump in Dayton, Ohio. Video: ...