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 -

House Republicans continue GOP’s affront to law enforcement


Grim Reaper 6

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Only if he incited a riot! If he did no such thing (he definitely did not) then he simply ignored them! As was expected to happen!

"He simply ignored them" is a funny way to say he was the keynote speaker at the protest, he waited hours to tweet for them to go home (which they did go home after his tweet. On camera shamon man is shown literally leaving because of his tweet), and of promising to offer them pardons if he wins reelection 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

"He simply ignored them" is a funny way to say he was the keynote speaker at the protest, he waited hours to tweet for them to go home (which they did go home after his tweet. On camera shamon man is shown literally leaving because of his tweet), and of promising to offer them pardons if he wins reelection 

He ignored the rioters! Being a speaker at a legally organised rally doesn't mean he incited a riot! He quite rightly ignored the rioters and did not pardon a single one of them! As expected!

They also marched on the Capitol hours before Trump told them to,  are you going to blame him for that too?

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

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

He ignored the rioters! Being a speaker at a legally organised rally doesn't mean he incited a riot!

They also marched on the Capitol hours before Trump told them to,  are you going to blend him for that too?

Everything I said was factual. If you count that as ignoring then you can. But I feel most wouldn't 

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

30 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Everything I said was factual. If you count that as ignoring then you can. But I feel most wouldn't 

I was replying to Doug  who stated Trump  "sort of hung them out to dry" (a direct quote that I replied to). Or,  in other words,  he IGNORED THEM! 

Read the whole post of mine in context,  you'll see it was pretty obvious I wasn't talking about legal events that took place on January 6, only the illegal ones! Otherwise,  he "sort of left them out to dry" by attending a rally as a keynote speaker :blink:

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

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

Everything I said was factual. If you count that as ignoring then you can. But I feel most wouldn't 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFa8FXFuffISTrRPmNmUY 

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Only if he incited a riot! If he did no such thing (he definitely did not) then he simply ignored them! As was expected to happen!

 His people who went to the Capitol certainly expected him to   “Go there with you”/them.  .like he said he would.   Then, he simply ignored them.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFa8FXFuffISTrRPmNmUY 

Since you wish to weigh into the discussion, can you explain to me the error in what I said!?!?

* Was I or was I not replying to someone who said "he (Trump) sort of hung them out to dry"? 

*  Is "hanging people out to dry" evidence that he was ignoring them?

* Is being a speaker at a legal rally enough to change the discussion with the same person who said "he hung them out to dry"? 

The alternative is that he didn't hang them out to dry,  and Doug is taking out his ****! But I kind of agree with Doug that Trump hung them out to dry,, so his presence at the rally on January 6 is irrelevant to whether he chose to pardon any rioters or not!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lightly said:

 His people who went to the Capitol certainly expected him to   “Go there with you”/them.  .like he said he would.   Then, he simply ignored them.   

The Secret Service wouldn't let Trump go, he allegedly even tried to grab the wheel (remember that story, fake news as it was, the codon was out there). Regardless,  he didn't incite a riot and he didn't pardon any rioters! He wasn't expected to pardon any rioters (I didn't expect him to, and I don't think anyone I know, even the most ardent Trump supporters  didn't expect him to). 

So to me the whole issue is a nothing burger!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

The Secret Service wouldn't let Trump go, he allegedly even tried to grab the wheel (remember that story, fake news as it was, the codon was out there). Regardless,  he didn't incite a riot and he didn't pardon any rioters! He wasn't expected to pardon any rioters (I didn't expect him to, and I don't think anyone I know, even the most ardent Trump supporters  didn't expect him to). 

So to me the whole issue is a nothing burger!

I honestly think trump KNEW the secret service would not let him go…while he was saying he would.   That way,  no matter what happened, he could claim zero responsibility…  “ I wasn’t even there! . .wasn’t even there “.        Things had already begun to get dicey at the Capitol…and they were hearing talk of Guns and Bombs at the ‘rally’.  image.jpeg.e9994020732532be8b07993df670f38c.jpeg

Edited by lightly
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lightly said:

I honestly think trump KNEW the secret service would not let him go…while he was saying he would.   That way,  no matter what happened, he could claim zero responsibility…  “ I wasn’t even there! . .wasn’t even there”.        Things had already begun to get dicey at the Capitol…and they were hearing talk of Guns and Bombs at the ‘rally’.  

In other words,  no evidence Trump incited a riot! And no reason to expect him to pardon the rioters.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

In other words,  no evidence Trump incited a riot! And no reason to expect him to pardon the rioters.  

 I saw, and  heard  all sorts of evidence trump incited the actions that happened on Jan 6.     Weren’t you listening to him since even BEFORE the election?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

In other words,  no evidence Trump incited a riot! And no reason to expect him to pardon the rioters.  

Well, there is this:Lawyers for Proud Boys member take steps to subpoena former President Trump in seditious conspiracy trial - CNNPolitics 

It's a longshot bid as judges have previously rejected subpoenas for Trump and arguments that rioters were obeying his orders in other trials of January 6 defendants.

And the whole promising to pardon them if elected:Trump says he would pardon Jan. 6 rioters if he runs and wins | Reuters

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

2 minutes ago, lightly said:

 I saw, and  heard  all sorts of evidence trump incited the actions that happened on Jan 6.     Weren’t you listening to him since even BEFORE the election?   

I saw no evidence (and have seen no evidence) that he incited a riot! Before,  during,  or after the election!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Well, there is this:Lawyers for Proud Boys member take steps to subpoena former President Trump in seditious conspiracy trial - CNNPolitics 

It's a longshot bid as judges have previously rejected subpoenas for Trump and arguments that rioters were obeying his orders in other trials of January 6 defendants.

I don't see any relevance! What people do as part of their legal defence is irrelevant to whether Trump incited a riot. If he incited a riot he'd be charged with inciting a riot, and we wouldn't have to rely on others who are charged making allegations that Trump wanted them to do it! 

 

23 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

And the whole promising to pardon them if elected:Trump says he would pardon Jan. 6 rioters if he runs and wins | Reuters

Also irrelevant! My gut instinct is that Trump is just making an empty campaign promise (can think of many campaign promises broken by politicians on all sides of the political aisles - reminds me of the joke about the politician who dies and gets to choose heaven or hell - hell looks like so much fun, so he chooses that only to be told that the devil was just "campaigning for his vote" and now the reality of hell is.... well, hell :lol: ). But more importantly, even if Trump is completely serious, it doesn't prove he incited a riot, or that he approves of the actions of the rioters! 

Keep in mind that most of those who have already been convicted over January 6, 2021, are already out of prison - the QAnon Shaman is already out, and he was one of the more active rioters on January 6 and accepted a sentence that is longer than most of the other sentences that have been given out! There's still six years before Trump even gets to consider pardoning anyone (assuming he wins the presidency), so what he's really saying is that he'll pardon any people who are still being prosecuted or punished in 2029 for something that happened in 2021. 

If anyone is still in prison under these circumstances as a result of what happened on January 6, 2021, I would actually support a pardon, as it would be excessive prosecution (unless we get a lot more evidence that people were trying to overthrow the government, and there are genuine seditionists among the rioters; my comments are based on what we currently know about the riots and the rioters), and I am against excessive prosecution particularly in highly political matters such as this. But that doesn't mean I support the riot in 2021! Though as noted, I think Trump is just making an empty campaing promise and he has no intention of pardoning them. That's also entirely within the scope of possibility and entirely reasonable. 

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

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Since you wish to weigh into the discussion, can you explain to me the error in what I said!?!?

* Was I or was I not replying to someone who said "he (Trump) sort of hung them out to dry"? 

*  Is "hanging people out to dry" evidence that he was ignoring them?

* Is being a speaker at a legal rally enough to change the discussion with the same person who said "he hung them out to dry"? 

The alternative is that he didn't hang them out to dry,  and Doug is taking out his ****! But I kind of agree with Doug that Trump hung them out to dry,, so his presence at the rally on January 6 is irrelevant to whether he chose to pardon any rioters or not!

 

What's the point?

Despite the majority of posters providing good evidence that he incited a riot, you have convinced yourself otherwise. 

Where does one go with that level of denial? 

Hence the meme. If the shoe fits, lace the sucker up. And it's snug. 

1538667893.png

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

What's the point?

Despite the majority of posters providing good evidence that he incited a riot, you have convinced yourself otherwise. 

Where does one go with that level of denial? 

Hence the meme. If the shoe fits, lace the sucker up. And it's snug. 

1538667893.png

Dude…. That’s Nic Cage.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Dude…. That’s Nic Cage.

Too much hair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Only if he incited a riot! If he did no such thing (he definitely did not) then he simply ignored them! As was expected to happen!

Are you trying to say he wasn't involved in 1/6?

Doug

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the topic of the thread:

Seems that the same people who objected to "defunding the police" after the George Floyd murder now want to defund the FBI.

Doug

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

14 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't see any relevance! What people do as part of their legal defence is irrelevant to whether Trump incited a riot. If he incited a riot he'd be charged with inciting a riot, and we wouldn't have to rely on others who are charged making allegations that Trump wanted them to do it! 

 

Also irrelevant! My gut instinct is that Trump is just making an empty campaign promise (can think of many campaign promises broken by politicians on all sides of the political aisles - reminds me of the joke about the politician who dies and gets to choose heaven or hell - hell looks like so much fun, so he chooses that only to be told that the devil was just "campaigning for his vote" and now the reality of hell is.... well, hell :lol: ). But more importantly, even if Trump is completely serious, it doesn't prove he incited a riot, or that he approves of the actions of the rioters! 

Keep in mind that most of those who have already been convicted over January 6, 2021, are already out of prison - the QAnon Shaman is already out, and he was one of the more active rioters on January 6 and accepted a sentence that is longer than most of the other sentences that have been given out! There's still six years before Trump even gets to consider pardoning anyone (assuming he wins the presidency), so what he's really saying is that he'll pardon any people who are still being prosecuted or punished in 2029 for something that happened in 2021. 

If anyone is still in prison under these circumstances as a result of what happened on January 6, 2021, I would actually support a pardon, as it would be excessive prosecution (unless we get a lot more evidence that people were trying to overthrow the government, and there are genuine seditionists among the rioters; my comments are based on what we currently know about the riots and the rioters), and I am against excessive prosecution particularly in highly political matters such as this. But that doesn't mean I support the riot in 2021! Though as noted, I think Trump is just making an empty campaing promise and he has no intention of pardoning them. That's also entirely within the scope of possibility and entirely reasonable. 

Can you cite the code where excessive prosecution is illegal? 

If you can't prove that excessive prosecution is illegal, why are you against it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't see any relevance! What people do as part of their legal defence is irrelevant to whether Trump incited a riot. If he incited a riot he'd be charged with inciting a riot, and we wouldn't have to rely on others who are charged making allegations that Trump wanted them to do it! 

 

Also irrelevant! My gut instinct is that Trump is just making an empty campaign promise (can think of many campaign promises broken by politicians on all sides of the political aisles - reminds me of the joke about the politician who dies and gets to choose heaven or hell - hell looks like so much fun, so he chooses that only to be told that the devil was just "campaigning for his vote" and now the reality of hell is.... well, hell :lol: ). But more importantly, even if Trump is completely serious, it doesn't prove he incited a riot, or that he approves of the actions of the rioters! 

Keep in mind that most of those who have already been convicted over January 6, 2021, are already out of prison - the QAnon Shaman is already out, and he was one of the more active rioters on January 6 and accepted a sentence that is longer than most of the other sentences that have been given out! There's still six years before Trump even gets to consider pardoning anyone (assuming he wins the presidency), so what he's really saying is that he'll pardon any people who are still being prosecuted or punished in 2029 for something that happened in 2021. 

If anyone is still in prison under these circumstances as a result of what happened on January 6, 2021, I would actually support a pardon, as it would be excessive prosecution (unless we get a lot more evidence that people were trying to overthrow the government, and there are genuine seditionists among the rioters; my comments are based on what we currently know about the riots and the rioters), and I am against excessive prosecution particularly in highly political matters such as this. But that doesn't mean I support the riot in 2021! Though as noted, I think Trump is just making an empty campaing promise and he has no intention of pardoning them. That's also entirely within the scope of possibility and entirely reasonable. 

Judges have been pretty lenient with sentences.  the reasoning being that if Congress considered sedition a serious crime, they would have passed tougher laws.

If Trump doesn't get elected in 2024 (and it's looking less likely all the time), then he will probably never get another chance.  He is toxic to Republican candidates.  Those who backed Trump last time got nominated in the primaries, only to lose in the general election.  MAGA is nominating candidates who can't win.  Sort of like the Dems and Hillary.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Are you trying to say he wasn't involved in 1/6?

Doug

No,  just that he didn't incite a riot!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Can you cite the code where excessive prosecution is illegal? 

If you can't prove that excessive prosecution is illegal, why are you against it?

If it was applied equally to all,  I guess I wouldn't be against it.  When left wing rioters get treated the same as right wing rioters, I'll stop this line of argument.  Until then,  we're left with a two- tied justice system where the left is consistently treated differently by the courts and the media!

 

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

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

No,  just that he didn't incite a riot!

But he did control it. Evidenced by the fact that once he told his supporters to leave, they did.......immediately. He could have done that hours earlier. He knows his supporters will do as he tells them.

It's irrelevant that he hasn't been charged. That's not proof he did nothing wrong. The burden of evidence is on the prosecution, and if they cannot prove something beyond reasonable doubt then they won't proceed with a prosecution. That's not the same as exonerating someone.

Any reasonable person can conclude that he had little problem with what the mob was doing that day and now hides behind a plausible deniability of culpability. Even if no crime can be proven in a court it's clear that he acted contrary to how any decent leader would in that situation. And the mental gymnastics you have to perform to maintain your support for him is quite something.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

If it was applied equally to all,  I guess I wouldn't be against it.  When left wing rioters get treated the same as right wing rioters, I'll stop this line of argument.  Until then,  we're left with a two- tied justice system where the left is consistently treated differently by the courts and the media!

 

You are left with the perception of a "two tied" justice system.  Where I live, we have a good justice system.

  • Like 2
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.