I'm still waiting for proof that TRUMP said "storm the capital"

I'm not surprised at all. I am very disappointed though.
It is a cornerstone of the peaceful transfer of power.
Do you think Obama wanted to attend Trump's inauguration? I highly doubt it but he did his duty.
Duty is an alien concept to Trump though as this petulant action shows.
He simply refuses to admit that he has been rejected by the American people.

 

LOL

Sounds like any other thing that would be said at any other protest.

 

*Rolls eyes*

Ok, clearly the left doesn't have ****. Good OP. Thanks for proving it.

 

that's why you're disgusted. if you'd have bitten the bullet and voted hard D you could at least say you tried to save yourself.
had all NO! voters had the slightest bit of balls to vote worth a damn we'd have a world now that they'd be well off with.
a qualified, sane, and humane woman named Hillary was just too bitter of a pill for you to swallow?

 

you want to hear it? no problem, let's talk about real lunatics.
what she said was decades overdue. had every stinking enabling Dem had the spine it took for her to risk her life and career to speak out to hate and treason we'd never have seen right wing crooks Nixon, Reagan, or W, and traitor trump would still be huddled in NYC grifting and grabbing everything he could grift and grab but desperately wishing he was cool.
she broke no laws yet you whine and other horrid hypocrites try to shut her up lol why do you think she has to say these truths?

 

I quoted your full post here because I find it to be a much fairer depiction of what actually happened. Trump did NOT tell his people to storm the capital. He said they have to be strong and resolute and that could mean many different things, including a step towards Trump running in 2024. Or it could mean storm the capital.

Rudy's quote saying "Trial by combat" is much much more direct and I don't understand why we are not seeing more calls for Rudy to be held accountable for it. Trump failed to control his people and keep them peaceful Rudy outright incited them to violence.

 

So you have no record of any affirmative political accomplishment whatsoever? Trump has won an election. You have not, it seems.

And your "personal opinion"? That's nice. Trump's "opinion" is that HRC is crooked -- it's worthless.

Why not look at the definition of sedition above and spell out how exactly he committed sedition? Otherwise, you're just spreading invective, and have disqualified yourself from serving on a jury in Trump's case. Do you recommend that everyone adopt your opinion, thereby disqualifying themselves from serving on Trump's jury?

That's a good way to ensure that he not be convicted.

 

No, it won't. But we all know that Trump attending the inauguration is not a good idea, either.

 

Yes, I agree. In that quote he even said to home in peace. Holding that quote as incitement is like the people peacefully protesting or saying police are racist towards black people (whether that's true or not) being held accountable for Antifa folks assaulting somebody wearing a MAGA hat.

Trump's failing here isn't that he incited violence. Its that he failed to push harder to dampen it. He should have known this could happen, even if he didn't intend or want it to happen.

 

Trump has lost an election in a historic, spectacularly epic disaster. I'll be generous and call that one even.

If I was on a federal jury panel do you think I would spout of like on an anonymous internet forum ? Hell , no !
I would be an excellent candidate when the judge interviewed me.

 

I'm trying to show you that you can't just label someone "this" or "that" without looking at their entire record, or at least not without being challenged. Almost no one can be reduced to one pejorative term like that. It's also just manifestly wrong that Trump is a "loser" in general. Like most people, he's won some and he's lost some. And he's won more than most of us have.

 

Bear in mind that people went to Washington because they believed 2 falsehoods: 1) that Trump won the election; 2) that something could be done on Jan 6 that would make a difference. This 2nd one is the more serious.

It was irresponsible for Trump to push those falsehoods. Even if his delusional mind believed they were true, he should have been circumspect in what he said. These falsehoods are the foundation of the rage among the members of the crowd.

 

We can't say what Trump is thinking, but the images they portray don't concern me. Some politicians are polished and charismatic. For me, it is the degree in which they interfere in my life I am most concerned about.

 

I never stated he said storm the capitol. I stated that he approves and excused his mindless seditious army of doing so.

 

"Should have known" is a tough one. The rioting and looting could be expected in other situations, but I didn't think people would force their way into the capitol. It was ironic that those pushing gun laws enjoyed armed protection for themselves.

 

Reasonable people did and that is a reason why it was removed.

 

In that case I would have though you would be more interested in what your President says rather than proudly declaring that you don't listen to his speeches or read his Tweets. Information is your friend.
After all, you said yourself ''Division allows both parties to spend our money like thieves with stolen credit cards while we attack each other!''

 

Kinda reminds me of the mafia boss, who ordered a hit, but didn't actually verbalize it, he spoke in codes, as Trump does, as Mr. Cohen explained.

See, it's all about what will persuade a jury, and presented with overwhelming evidence, I think a good attorney can get the jury there.

 

Yeah, he won by fluke of the electoral college. Certainly didn't have the support of the majority. Then he had the gall to assert that the 3 million votes he lost by were illegal immigrants, a charge he made with zero evidence, a charge that no president worth his salt would have ever made.

Not a win I would be bragging about, if it were me.

 

Well the post I quoted tends to contradict you

 

she is under attack for her very existence with many wanting to terminate her existence. do you understand what's going on, or even care?

 

As she is also advocating for, and clearly you agree with.. Watch the video and realize what you're agreeing with and supporting!

 

You will see it first hand on Monday when congress charges him through impeachment on one charge, incitement to insurrection.

 

That doesn't mean it says what you claim.

 

You know, you really should rethink your patronizing on this forum, there is nothing uglier than someone who thinks he knows **** when in fact, it just might be true he or she doesn't. Now, as a lay person, sure, I could be wrong about this, but let me offer a counter argument. So.......

Precedent is not law, it's just precedent that is followed, but only when it applies.

Right?

Here, we are talking about the words of the President Of The United States, whose words carry far more weight and have far more sway than that of your average citizen, a president who has been pounding into the brains of his followers that democrats stole the election, for months on end, and he whipped them up into a frenzy upon which the firecracker he built, and lit, exploded and then four people were killed but for the firecracker being constructed and lit. I think we are on new ground here, noting that SCOTUS can do whatever the hell it wants, when it comes to precedent. Stare Decisis is the operative word, unless there is a rational basis to divert from it, and I think there is here.

If he if charged we'll see what a jury decides, if there is a conviction, it will be appealed, and on up to SCOTUS and we'll see how they rule on it. I think it's an open question at this point. Laws are black and white, but precedents (seldom are one case cited in a ruling, notably ) are far more nuanced.

But, with this Acting AG, he probably won't be charged.