Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Bye-bye, baby': Experts affirmatively conclude 'yes, it's happening' — Trump is getting indicted


Grim Reaper 6

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Eh. Honestly won't believe it until I see it 

Same. I'm not holding my breath here.

We don't hold rich people accountable in this country. Not for real. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/27/2022 at 6:41 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

It's an expectation that has been heard before

Too many times.

Even if indicted (which I think likely) I doubt he will receive punishment.  If found guilty the worst that will happen is he won't be allowed to hold public office again IMO.   

How many times have I seen people rubbing their groins in anticipation of trump being taken down?  several times a year since 2016.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Too many times.

Even if indicted (which I think likely) I doubt he will receive punishment.  If found guilty the worst that will happen is he won't be allowed to hold public office again IMO.   

How many times have I seen people rubbing their groins in anticipation of trump being taken down?  several times a year since 2016.

You might want to find new spaces to hang out in....

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, the13bats said:

 

Iirc those charged with j6 insurrection said to the effect they did as they thought BOM wanted them to do. Hum.

Those involved investigators, commities, DOJ etc dont want to bumble it when charges start falling on trump they will stick.

Be it for stolen docs or his stirring up the j6.

Yeah, the documents from Mar Lago is an Open/Shut case, I think. 

The Insurrection charge is wobbly IMHO. Did Trump specifically say, "Go do this action", or "Go attack this building", or "Go kill this politician"? Not in so many words. And people doing what they thought he wanted is not directly his fault. Indirectly, yes. But to prove the crime, direct evidence will be necessary. 

I believe there is direct evidence of some of Trumps advisors acting in a seditious/insurrectionist manner. But, then a direct link to Trump knowing what they were doing is going to be necessary. Assuming Trump "must have known" is a good way to get evidence thrown out, and the charges dismissed.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Insurrection Charges preferred against Trump and sent to the Justice Department for indictment:

The committee voted unanimously to recommend Trump be prosecuted on four charges: obstruction of an official proceeding of the United States government, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to make a false statement, and inciting, assisting, or aid and comforting an insurrection. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/12/january-6-committee-recommends-four-charges-against-donald-trump-capitol-attack

That's all true, but they are going to have to prove he did one of those things... intentionally... With thought of insurrection as his goal. Is there actual paper evidence, or records, that directly link Trump to the rioters? Links by way of advisors, yes, but not AFAIK direct links, where Trump gave orders coming out of his mouth saying to assault the actual buildings and attack the Congress.

He made a speech, which could be seen as insighting. But then reading the words, it could be considered "just a speech" also. I think that speaks to his intent, but isn't evidence of the act of insurrection.

Just saying it will be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt with the evidence I have heard. If we're talking Civil Court rules... Then it would be a slam dunk, as the level of proof required is much lower, I believe.

As to the committee voting unanimously... If such a committee was formed with the GOP in charge and they voted to charge Biden with something, and got two or three Dems to go along. Would that be considered non-bias? Not a chance. This is a bias decision, regardless of the evidence. Not saying the charges be tossed out, but that people crowing it was a unanimous vote isn't very impressive.

Quote

The insurrection on January 6, information can be found in a link in the source article in the OP! However, the main article is concerning the stolen, illegally stored, and possibly exposed to an individual or individuals with out the necessary security clearance to view them or even copy them because of unsecured  storage. So, on this point I will give it to you even though there are links within the OP Article to the Insurrection!:nw: 

I thought I checked all the links. I'll check again. Maybe I missed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Well it appears your a little confused because above you quoted me asking if there were insurrection charges against Trump and here you say it will take people fro the White House to Testify or that it won’t stick. Obviously, you need to either watch the January 6 recorded videos of the testimony videos on YouTube or at least research the topic. Because, there already has been White Staffers that were present before January 6 and during the entire ensuing insurrection who have testified including the White Chief of Staffs ( Mark Meadows ) Secretary,  Trumps White House Lawyer who resigned on  January 7 after the insurrection because he would no longer defend Trump after the Insurrection and many many other White House Staffers, along wit intercepted tweets and cell phone conversations.  All the White Staffers were directly present and were able to present first hand information.

I agree. I meant that the people who testified to Congress would also have to line up for the Criminal Trial. Some likely would, some maybe not. And it would depend on what the Prosecutor was trying to prove. And what records there are to back up the eyewitness testimony.

Also would depend on the Judge, sad to say. A left leaning judge might find evidence admissible, that a right leaning judge might not. If Trump gets the right judge, it could be over before it gets started.

Quote

I am also fully behind DeSantis, and he is beating Trump in polls Nationwide and what’s hilarious is Trump is doing everything from rallies to the ridiculous Socialtruth site to campaign. DeSantis, hasn’t he stated he would run, and has done no campaigning i am aware of and he’s beating Trump, why because he is the Republican Party’s golden boy shining very bright!:tu:

DeSantis doesn't even need to do any campaigning as of yet. He just needs to let Trump continue to self destruct. He should take the high road on this and wait till the primaries before getting rough with any GOP contenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I agree. I meant that the people who testified to Congress would also have to line up for the Criminal Trial. Some likely would, some maybe not. And it would depend on what the Prosecutor was trying to prove. And what records there are to back up the eyewitness testimony.

Ha! Ha! Ha!, I agree with you if Trump is indicted on charges that their testimony concerned yea they most likely be required to testify. If, he is indicted I suspect they will try and prosecute him on the 3 counts of Insurrection. Because, that way he will be finished politically but even if he is found guilty on one or all of those Charges I doubt he will imprisoned unless he acts in normal fashion or if his Far RightWing Extremist Posse acts out do to his indictment. 

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Also would depend on the Judge, sad to say. A left leaning judge might find evidence admissible, that a right leaning judge might not. If Trump gets the right judge, it could be over before it gets started.

I disagree that right or left will play a part because the most important thing is transparency and follow the letter of the law. Because, if he is found guilty or not the ruling will go to an appeals court so follow the letter of the law is very important without any bias.

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

DeSantis doesn't even need to do any campaigning as of yet. He just needs to let Trump continue to self destruct. He should take the high road on this and wait till the primaries before getting rough with any GOP contenders.

DeSantis, fully realizes that and that’s why no matter how ridiculous Trump acts toward him so far he has let Trumps comments roll off his back like water poured on a Duck!:yes: DeSantis, is far more intelligent than Trump and that’s very very obvious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2022 at 1:41 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Legal experts Andrew Weissmann, Maya Wiley and Basil Smikle all agreed that it's officially the beginning of the end of Donald Trump.

Remember, it was "the beginning of the end" in 2017 too. And 2018. And 2019, 2020, and just for something completely different it was the beginning of the end in 2021 too :lol: 

But don't worry, in November 2022 it really IS the beginning of the end this time! 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Remember, it was "the beginning of the end" in 2017 too. And 2018. And 2019, 2020, and just for something completely different it was the beginning of the end in 2021 too :lol: 

But don't worry, in November 2022 it really IS the beginning of the end this time! 

Haha 

 

20221229_153632.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

That's all true, but they are going to have to prove he did one of those things... intentionally... With thought of insurrection as his goal. Is there actual paper evidence, or records, that directly link Trump to the rioters? Links by way of advisors, yes, but not AFAIK direct links, where Trump gave orders coming out of his mouth saying to assault the actual buildings and attack the Congress.

No actually they don’t have to prove it was intentionally done, only that do to actions he created the situation. I think Trumps best defense is mental instability or something similar because that would be very easy for a jury to believe by the manner in which he acts alone. Well, his comments along with his Son’s comments and the other members of Trumps posse that spoke at that rally before the incident were not direct but they were veiled in respect to preventing the certification to continue. The clincher is when Trump in his ultimate warped wisdom told the crowd to move down to the Capital and to let those inside hear their disappointment. The crowd of thousands were already fired up by the speeches at the rally, so in Trumps normal fashion where he opens his pie hole and makes comments before he thinks he didn’t fail to act that day.

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

He made a speech, which could be seen as insighting. But then reading the words, it could be considered "just a speech" also. I think that speaks to his intent, but isn't evidence of the act of insurrection.

Well, he was the last speaker, and after the speeches his posse made added to his comments it was more than just insightful. What also adds to the Insurrection charges are what Trump didn’t do, for instance during the entire event for approximately two hours he would not answer phone calls, from the representatives trapped at the Capital, he didn’t do anything in a attempt to help them and he nothing to try to defuse the situation instead according to testimony he was smiling while watching the events unfold on TV.. 

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Just saying it will be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt with the evidence I have heard. If we're talking Civil Court rules... Then it would be a slam dunk, as the level of proof required is much lower, I believe.

Did you watch all the televised Testimony during the Jan 6 committee investigation? If, not you should review it it’s all posted upon YouTube, I watched all of it more than once so I didn’t miss anything.

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

As to the committee voting unanimously... If such a committee was formed with the GOP in charge and they voted to charge Biden with something, and got two or three Dems to go along. Would that be considered non-bias? Not a chance. This is a bias decision, regardless of the evidence. Not saying the charges be tossed out, but that people crowing it was a unanimous vote isn't very impressive.

Well, when it comes to the GOP involvement in the committee they had their chance to be involved equally, however except for a single GOP member the rest turned their backs and refused to participate. Yes it was a unanimous vote and it can’t be proven to be bias, the GOP screwed the pooch when they walked out and refused to be members of the committee. They did that because they never thought it would go this far or that so many White House staffers, the White House Lawyers and so dam many other testified honestly even those charged would provide some much damming information along with speaking out honestly concerning what they witnessed. The GOP made a huge mistake by not participating and walking out in the beginning and to say now that it’s not really unanimous because it’s bias is whining.

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I thought I checked all the links. I'll check again. Maybe I missed it.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Remember, it was "the beginning of the end" in 2017 too. And 2018. And 2019, 2020, and just for something completely different it was the beginning of the end in 2021 too :lol: 

But don't worry, in November 2022 it really IS the beginning of the end this time! 

 

14 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Haha 

 

20221229_153632.jpg

Well Diaper Don isn’t laughing now, he has completely lost bladder and bowel control because of his meltdowns, if he isn’t careful he could stroke out especially based upon his cholesterol filled diet along with fear based stress.:yes:

 

 

21B38A77-BC39-4890-88F2-B04FB6B3BA12.webp

44990913-1407-49CE-B9DE-40443AF99674.jpeg

025730F3-DBBB-4A16-AC59-6DBE757EBD5C.webp

F86BC333-7B73-4ADE-AB1E-42F3385813C8.jpeg

Edited by Grim Reaper 6
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Remember, it was "the beginning of the end" in 2017 too. And 2018. And 2019, 2020, and just for something completely different it was the beginning of the end in 2021 too :lol: 

But don't worry, in November 2022 it really IS the beginning of the end this time! 

 

7C85E55D-A57F-4A7F-9D62-7E4D2EAF5938.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This song perfectly describes a TRUMP MAGA AMERICA,  the education levels of our youth, because he likes to keep people dumb, along with how his leadership effects the environment.:yes:

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Yeah, the documents from Mar Lago is an Open/Shut case, I think. 

The Insurrection charge is wobbly IMHO. Did Trump specifically say, "Go do this action", or "Go attack this building", or "Go kill this politician"? Not in so many words. And people doing what they thought he wanted is not directly his fault. Indirectly, yes. But to prove the crime, direct evidence will be necessary. 

I believe there is direct evidence of some of Trumps advisors acting in a seditious/insurrectionist manner. But, then a direct link to Trump knowing what they were doing is going to be necessary. Assuming Trump "must have known" is a good way to get evidence thrown out, and the charges dismissed.

When you say the documents are open shut do you mean you believe guilty or innocent?

The investagating trump did on the 6th lead to to storming of the cap, trump was saying things about fraud dont let them steal this and fight etc, heck he was gonna go with them i dont have a side or party, however when i see people try to say trump didnt want what happened those folks are lying, ignorant or both if hes guilty in way he can be prosecuted that is another story but he did cause the 6th and didnt step up to stop it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

No actually they don’t have to prove it was intentionally done, only that do to actions he created the situation.

I think that is greatly simplifying things. From what I've looked at online (example) it is not so cut and dry.

Quote

Insurrection also falls under the same suite of federal laws as sedition, and the two can be difficult to distinguish. But it is charged by federal prosecutors far more rarely—almost never in American history. 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.

Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher, mounted an armed standoff with the federal government in 2014—his son, Ammon Bundy, did the same in Oregon in 2016—on the basis of an explicitly anti-U.S. government philosophy. Still, prosecutors did not charge them with insurrection, which legal experts say is nearly impossible to prove in court.

 

Quote

I think Trumps best defense is mental instability or something similar because that would be very easy for a jury to believe by the manner in which he acts alone. Well, his comments along with his Son’s comments and the other members of Trumps posse that spoke at that rally before the incident were not direct but they were veiled in respect to preventing the certification to continue. The clincher is when Trump in his ultimate warped wisdom told the crowd to move down to the Capital and to let those inside hear their disappointment. The crowd of thousands were already fired up by the speeches at the rally, so in Trumps normal fashion where he opens his pie hole and makes comments before he thinks he didn’t fail to act that day.

If telling people to go fight is insurrection, then there's LOTS of politicians guilty of that. Maxine Waters for instance. Even Hillary Clinton said to go find Trump officials and impede their work and lives.

Quote

Well, he was the last speaker, and after the speeches his posse made added to his comments it was more than just insightful. What also adds to the Insurrection charges are what Trump didn’t do, for instance during the entire event for approximately two hours he would not answer phone calls, from the representatives trapped at the Capital, he didn’t do anything in a attempt to help them and he nothing to try to defuse the situation instead according to testimony he was smiling while watching the events unfold on TV..

There is some truth to all that. But is doing nothing insurrection? Is it seditious? Is it treason? Very hard to prove. Unless he was there watching TV, verbalizing, "Yes, go get them all!!!". But, just smiling, and doing nothing, would be hard to prove as evidence. Otherwise, wouldn't there actually be millions of those guilty of doing nothing?

Best bet would be inciting. And even that has lots of wiggle room. Many of the Capital rioters were at the Capital and getting rowdy before Trump was even half way through his speech. Be sure he'll make sure that is noted.

Quote

Did you watch all the televised Testimony during the Jan 6 committee investigation? If, not you should review it it’s all posted upon YouTube, I watched all of it more than once so I didn’t miss anything.

I did not. I'd rather watch soap operas then politicians just clapping each other on the back.

I will however. Try going and looking at what they said the Insurrection charges are.

Quote

Well, when it comes to the GOP involvement in the committee they had their chance to be involved equally, however except for a single GOP member the rest turned their backs and refused to participate. Yes it was a unanimous vote and it can’t be proven to be bias, the GOP screwed the pooch when they walked out and refused to be members of the committee. They did that because they never thought it would go this far or that so many White House staffers, the White House Lawyers and so dam many other testified honestly even those charged would provide some much damming information along with speaking out honestly concerning what they witnessed. The GOP made a huge mistake by not participating and walking out in the beginning and to say now that it’s not really unanimous because it’s bias is whining.

Doesn't not make the committee bias. Just means they didn't have any dissenters. With Pelosi forming the thing, the result was never in dispute.

The GOP did what they did because 100% Pelosi set it up so the result would be what it is. She didn't intend on it ever being a 50/50 assigned committee. She insisted on controlling one or two of the Republicans who would sit on the committee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, the13bats said:

When you say the documents are open shut do you mean you believe guilty or innocent?

100% he created a situation that was illegal. So, IMHO, on that, he's guilty.

Quote

The investagating trump did on the 6th lead to to storming of the cap, trump was saying things about fraud dont let them steal this and fight etc, heck he was gonna go with them i dont have a side or party, however when i see people try to say trump didnt want what happened those folks are lying, ignorant or both if hes guilty in way he can be prosecuted that is another story but he did cause the 6th and didnt step up to stop it.

Oh, he wanted a big show. He wanted a riot. I can't say that he wanted the riot to go into the buildings and attack the Senate count. 

Plus a large number of the rioters were at the Capital, testing the police barricades, even as he was at the most inciting part of his speech. Maybe they were watching on their phones? But, like I said, hard to prove in Court without a huge amount of effort.

I'm not saying Trump didn't incite the crowd. I'm saying proving that such incitement was insurrection is going to be really hard. Especially if it is a "fair" judge.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

100% he created a situation that was illegal. So, IMHO, on that, he's guilty.

Oh, he wanted a big show. He wanted a riot. I can't say that he wanted the riot to go into the buildings and attack the Senate count. 

Plus a large number of the rioters were at the Capital, testing the police barricades, even as he was at the most inciting part of his speech. Maybe they were watching on their phones? But, like I said, hard to prove in Court without a huge amount of effort.

I'm not saying Trump didn't incite the crowd. I'm saying proving that such incitement was insurrection is going to be really hard. Especially if it is a "fair" judge.

You know, I agree and disagree with you at the same time.  He wanted the angry crowd, but that was to be intimidation and a distraction.  Their purpose wasn't to lynch the congreemen. The real coup was the fake electors scheme and an intimidated congress and Pence was necessary for that to succeed.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

100% he created a situation that was illegal. So, IMHO, on that, he's guilty.

Oh, he wanted a big show. He wanted a riot. I can't say that he wanted the riot to go into the buildings and attack the Senate count. 

Plus a large number of the rioters were at the Capital, testing the police barricades, even as he was at the most inciting part of his speech. Maybe they were watching on their phones? But, like I said, hard to prove in Court without a huge amount of effort.

I'm not saying Trump didn't incite the crowd. I'm saying proving that such incitement was insurrection is going to be really hard. Especially if it is a "fair" judge.

I believe we sorta agree, trump wanted a big show a riot but he also wanted to stay in office and made it rather clear to his drones that what he wanted,

Its akin to a person wants a big show and lights a bunch of illegal fireworks which in turn burn a house down and kills people its there fault they lit the fuse if the law says so and convicts that remains to be seen, if trump walks for what he did on the 6th its an atrocity to the country and its people. And sets a precedent that any sore loser cry baby can start a riot and storm the cap.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

You know, I agree and disagree with you at the same time.  He wanted the angry crowd, but that was to be intimidation and a distraction.  Their purpose wasn't to lynch the congreemen. The real coup was the fake electors scheme and an intimidated congress and Pence was necessary for that to succeed.

Perhaps thats why trumps minions were a bumbling incompetent mess.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think that is greatly simplifying things. From what I've looked at online (example) it is not so cut and dry.

Your certainly welcome to your opinion it will not be long now to find out what will occur!

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

 

If telling people to go fight is insurrection, then there's LOTS of politicians guilty of that. Maxine Waters for instance. Even Hillary Clinton said to go find Trump officials and impede their work and lives.

There is some truth to all that. But is doing nothing insurrection? Is it seditious? Is it treason? Very hard to prove. Unless he was there watching TV, verbalizing, "Yes, go get them all!!!". But, just smiling, and doing nothing, would be hard to prove as evidence. Otherwise, wouldn't there actually be millions of those guilty of doing nothing?

Well according the testimony from people during the televised 6 JAN Committee I again disagree with your comments above completely.

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Best bet would be inciting. And even that has lots of wiggle room. Many of the Capital rioters were at the Capital and getting rowdy before Trump was even half way through his speech. Be sure he'll make sure that is noted.

I did not. I'd rather watch soap operas then politicians just clapping each other on the back.

It’s obvious by your comments you didn’t watch the televised testimonies, because there the information came from the horse’s mouth and in the media what was said was changed in a bias manner to fit certain narratives. Thanks for being honest!

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I will however. Try going and looking at what they said the Insurrection charges are.

Doesn't not make the committee bias. Just means they didn't have any dissenters. With Pelosi forming the thing, the result was never in dispute.

The GOP did what they did because 100% Pelosi set it up so the result would be what it is. She didn't intend on it ever being a 50/50 assigned committee. She insisted on controlling one or two of the Republicans who would sit on the committee.

Like I said the Republicans screwed up when they walked away and it far to late to whine about people being bias now that could all have been prevented including the final voted decision. So, when people on the forum make those comments all I can say is would you like cheese with your whine!:lol:

OK. Peace Bro!:tu:

Edited by Grim Reaper 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Gromdor said:

You know, I agree and disagree with you at the same time.  He wanted the angry crowd, but that was to be intimidation and a distraction.  Their purpose wasn't to lynch the congreemen. The real coup was the fake electors scheme and an intimidated congress and Pence was necessary for that to succeed.

I thought the whole idea of the fake electors had fallen apart by that point. Reading up on it, I guess not, since there was a guy trying to hand Pence fake certificates as the riot began outside.

That also, IIRC, can easily be pinned on the one aid... Eastman. And partly on Guilianni. be sure Trump will try.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot

The Wiki says Trump, Eastman, and Guilianni all pitched in on the fake elector scheme. And you're right, they needed Pence to make that scheme happen. Trump condemned Pence when he said he wouldn't do so, but I'd have to see if that was before, during, or after the riots when Trump said that.

EDIT: Looks like his tweet was during the riot.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/jan-6-hearing-today-trump/card/trump-s-tweet-about-pence-seen-as-critical-moment-during-riot-fmPxoFkeoTKxi0NqPLCL

Quote

Mr. Trump tweeted at 2:24 p.m., after the riot was under way: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.” That was a reference to the vice president’s refusal to block the certification of President Biden’s election win in the joint session of Congress that day.

“The tweet looked to me like the opposite of what we really needed at that moment, which was a deescalation,” Matt Pottinger, Mr. Trump’s former deputy national security adviser, told the committee.

 

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/29/2022 at 10:07 AM, OverSword said:

If found guilty the worst that will happen is he won't be allowed to hold public office again IMO.   

Only if SCOTUS rules against the clear language in the Constitution.  They'd have to convict him of treason as defined in the Constitution and that is simply not possible.  For that, they'd have to prove that he actually led troops against this nation OR he provided "aid and comfort" to our enemies during a war.  The touchy feely stuff won't cut it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay … let me get this straight. 
Trump’s being charged for his rhetoric. Just his rhetoric? Not the actions of the useful idiots, not the deaths, not the dmage … just his rhetoric? 
Okay. Sounds fair. Sounds convictable. 
However… lots of other powerful people including presidents have used phrases like “fight like hell” and “I understand your anger” in times that lead up to riots. The media inflamed violence in relation to George Ffloyd for example, in relation to that smirky kid in the hat, in relation to whatshisname with the gun who shot those rioters. 
does this (attempted) conviction set a precedent for other convictions in the future?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Okay … let me get this straight. 
Trump’s being charged for his rhetoric. Just his rhetoric? Not the actions of the useful idiots, not the deaths, not the dmage … just his rhetoric? 
Okay. Sounds fair. Sounds convictable. 
However… lots of other powerful people including presidents have used phrases like “fight like hell” and “I understand your anger” in times that lead up to riots. The media inflamed violence in relation to George Ffloyd for example, in relation to that smirky kid in the hat, in relation to whatshisname with the gun who shot those rioters. 
does this (attempted) conviction set a precedent for other convictions in the future?

Those examples aren't of someone in high office that swore an oath to protect the Constitution.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Those examples aren't of someone in high office that swore an oath to protect the Constitution.

Jivin’ Joe and Barry O both used similar language 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.