There will be no 'unity' until justice is served on Donald Trump

In an 80-page brief filed on Tuesday, the managers outlined the arguments they planned to make when the Senate opens Mr. Trump’s trial next week, contending that the former president whipped his supporters into a “frenzy” as part of a concerted campaign to cling to power. Spinning a vivid narrative of a harrowing day when lawmakers were forced to flee as a violent pro-Trump mob breached the Capitol, the prosecutors also reached back centuries to bolster their case, invoking George Washington and the Constitutional Convention.

“The framers of the Constitution feared a president who would corrupt his office by sparing ‘no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected,’” wrote the nine House Democrats, led by Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, quoting directly from the 1787 debate in Philadelphia. “If provoking an insurrectionary riot against a joint session of Congress after losing an election is not an impeachable offense, it is hard to imagine what would be.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/us/politics/impeachment-trump-capitol-riot.html

 

The Opening Post is but one inconvenient example.

Fortunately, it's mild compared to what the Left's history has to offer...

 

You levy the lions share, cause the most and carry nothing.

 

Why?

 

Now the failure and destruction belong to you and the rest of the DCP disciples. Your messiah Traitor Joe is proving that he is a lying worthless puppet.

 

I also agree with you, but until the SC says that though, it is the law of the land, bad law, yes, but still law

 

That is the stretch that is being pursued.

 

It's not what he's saying that's a lie, but how you're misrepresenting it that's a lie. Are you really so narrow-minded as to not know what he meant by, "Mexico will pay for the wall?"

 

There will be no unity, even after justice is served on Donald Trump. There, fixed the title for you...

 

I think think the founders intended it that way but it isn't that way today.

 

The post to which I replied did. Focus.

 

One can have an opinion about one's guilt or innocence. But, a trial is necessary to clear the air, either way, guilt or innocent.
There is plenty of 'probable cause'.

 

After 25 years of investigations of the Clintons, which haven't produced indictments, it's time to let that one go.

As for Obama, what crime are you talking about?

 

No ultimatum was given. A condition was given.

If I say, you won't be happy until you figure out what you want to do, that is a condition and it's not arbitrary, it's logical.


If I said, let me marry your daughter, or I will foreclose on your house, that is an ultimatum.

To say 'no unity until justice' is a logical condition. Indeed, it's possible there could be some semblance of unity without justice, but it's just that it will be more whole, more complete, if there is justice.

That is NOT an ultimatum, it is a recommended recipe for a higher atmospheric state of the nation, it's more in the nature of an ideal.

 

The intentions are true but we can disagree it a former POTUS can be found"guilty". The Constitution does not say you can neither does it prohibit it. Yet a former POTUS is not above the law so how do we punish one who committed what amounts to a crime?

 

Nope. It fits the definition. "a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations."

This only shows that Trump still holds power in the heads of many. Since we are recommending recipes,

I recommend we treat our fellow man with respect and make it a point to understand each others beliefs even when we disagree or someone isn't thrown in jail.

 

And plenty of "probably not cause".

 

My opinion on crime and punishment is uncommon and unpopular. First, if there is no victim, no one should ever face charges. Second, if someone does not harm someone physically, they should not be in prison. Non violent criminals should repay their debt, not accrue more debt through free housing and medical care. Those that stormed the capitol and harmed others should be separated from society and have only themselves to blame. There is nothing Trump said that a reasonable person could translate into incitement.

 

No, because you can't reduce the nation and those who want to impeach the president to such simplistic transactional terms.

The term 'ultimatum' is not normally used in the context you are attempting to force it into.

McConnell filibustered the organizing resolution. Had he held his ground, stating to Schumer, 'codify the filibuster or you don't get your committees' that would have been an ultimatum. That example is clearly transactional. Your usage of the term is, well, awkward, not quite right.

 

No prison for Madoff, then?

To view incarceration as 'free housing and medical care' is a transactional view.
Madoff definitely needed to be incarcerated. Paying people back is not enough because at his level, it's a crime against the united states, not just crime against those he robbed. He stole people's life savings, and not all of it was retrievable, he ruined people's lives.

You are so wrong I don't even know where to begin.

You can't look at the 'speech' in isolation.

Trump had been poisoning the mind of his followers for a few years, telling them that Democrats were going to steal the election, and he told them that before the first vote was cast, such that, it was the battle cry on January 6th, 'Stop the Steal', he drove them by filling their hearts and minds with hatred, such that it became the unstoppable juggernaut that was unleashed on January 6. He filled their hearts and minds with such hatred because they believed democrat's were going to steal the election, what could they do to stop it? Charge the capitol, take action.

Although Trump didn't specifically tell anyone to commit illegal acts, he does bear responsibility, not all of it, but most of it. Just do a 'but for'. But for Trump, there would have been no siege. Of course, not all 'but for(s)" prove the case, but, given the totality of the facts, they do here.

It boils down to the fact that the engine of the juggernaut that charged the capitol was rage over the act that they believed Democrats stole the election. So, that's where the 'but for' goes, i.e., but for their belief the election was stolen, they wouldn't have charged the capitol building BECAUSE they were trying to 'take back' what they 'believed was theirs' that 'democrats stole from them'.

But for that one fact, 5 people who died or were murdered would still be alive.

Trump is a special case, as President of the United States, his words matter, carry far more weight than that of your average citizen. Therefore his speech, whereupon he told a lie that 'dems stole the election' (because 60 lawsuits failed to prove that contention) over and over and over at all of his rallies (numerous every month of the year ) for a number of months, such that when they did charge the Capitol, they shouted 'stop the steal' 'hang pence' 'find Pelosi' that what was driving their rage to the point of a juggernaut was the lie that Democrats stole the election, and filled with this rage, they decided to do something about it, they made that decision on January 6, after Eric told them "we are coming for you" and Giuliani shouted "trial by combat" and Trump asserted (paraphrased) 'march on Washington, and we must take back our country, we can't be weak", and when they did something about it, all of which can be likened to a volcano about to erupt, which did finally erupt, he whipped his flock up to a frenzy, driven by 'stop the steal' all it took was being whipped up to a frenzy, it didn't really matter if Trump actually said 'take the capitol building' or not, because, given the entirety of the message, evidenced by the 'stop the steal' mantra over a period of months, that is what they heard, which resulted in 5 people were killed, many were injured, property was damaged, and Pelosi's computer was stolen. All of his speech, deeds, taken as a whole, over a period of many months, there is a solid ( not air tight, but solid ) argument that he committed sedition, and that argument can, and probably will, at some point, be argued in a court of a law, and I hope the government prevails against Trump, because justice matters.

That is the view of a reasonable person. Only an unreasonable person who is blinded by partisanship cannot see it.

Read the 77 days article
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/us/trump-election-lie.html

"You convince millions that an election was *literally* stolen though massive conspiracy and fraud, that the courts have failed them at every level (and may be in on it) and then tell them not to back down, keep fighting, a very foreseeable result is that people will turn violent." --@MichaelDKarras
.

 

Yeah, right. Funny thing, republicans are committing all the crimes:
Right wing militias are threatening politicians with harm, planning hostile and criminal acts, and, according to the FBi,
pose the greatest domestic terrorism threat.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ence-in-2009-it-caused-an-uproar-i-was-right/

Republican administrations commit far more crimes than any other party.

 

There will be no unit until "justice" is served on approximately 40% of the population. You think it will end with Trump? Ha.

 

Yes, I am so narrow-minded that I believe that when Trump said "Mexico will pay for the wall” he meant to convince gullible voters that Mexico will pay, even he is smart enough to know Mexico will never pay in any means. Proof to what I say is true that Trump continue to make some of his products in Mexico and during Trump presidency US trade deficit with Mexico increased:

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/trumps-made-in-the-u-s-a-spin/

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html

It is just common sense: why Mexico which is poorer that the US would pay for the US wall? Any Mexican government which would agree to pay for the US wall, US social security or the US army would lost the election by a landslide – and Trump knew it:
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/trumps-made-in-the-u-s-a-spin/

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/03/5413...resident-border-wall-is-least-important-thing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...2c0a4e-7610-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html

But Trump also knew that his gullible supporters will believe him:

 

To understand my point, one must be knowledgeable about the spirit and letter of the US Constitution. It appears you are not.

 

There are plenty of early SCOTUS decisions stating that any legislative act hostile to the USC is null and void. No citizen has any obligation to obey any such illegitimate legislation, said the court way back in the early days.