I believe we now have conclusive proof that Trump caused 1/6

Like other criminal prosecutions. If three people rob a bank and one of them was the leader, he usually gets a longer prison sentence. So, Trump deserves the longest prison sentence.

 

Well, there you go again. You're the one changing the subject and focus and grasping at anything you think will work to prove your pointless points. Yesterday you were pulling out your hair bouncing from "rule of law, to semantics of what the insurrectionists are called.

Whatever are you talking about? Kangaroo clown show? Some of the "protestors" were terrorists.
You "asked" me if I thought ALL the insurrectionists were terrorists and I said no, but some definitely were; and they WERE.

And there you go again. I did not say, "I hope the are fully prosecuted" for terrorism"; whatever those strange quotes mean - you're missing one or have an extra one. I get it though, it's hard to use quotes when your making up the quote. In fact I only said, "I hope that they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and given the maximum sentence allowed, AFTER I had said I don't really care what you call them.

It's obvious you really don't have a point anymore, if you ever did. You're here to win, whatever that means to you, so you have no problem bouncing all over the map or putting words into my mouth or twisting the words I did say as long as it moves your Calvin ball down the field.

 

How is talking about "Terrorists" changing the subject from "Rule of Law" - and you claiming that the lable "Terrorist" is semantics .. proves you have little clue what is going on here. We have different rules for terrorists and it was not just those at the protests who were called terrrorists . but also those involved.. not just those who committed dirty deeds .. but all those participating.

So when you complain "I did not say I hope they are fully prosecuted for terrorism" -- yes you did.. as you support "FULL Prosecution" --- and this whole political kangaroo clown show.. who was desperately trying to call all the aforementioned "Terrorists" .

What part of .. One person is not to be punished for the actions of another --- are you having trouble understanding ? aka Rule of Law.
What part of .. We can now do the same for any protest where some of the participants engage in violence or property destruction .. "Terrorists .. The Lot of them" -- should such a thing be allowed here ... as dumbass Joe and many of the rest of the Blue Clown show was pushing for.

No one put any words in your mouth .. your problem is that you don't know what you are saying -- least not in this case ... holding two positions that contradict each other .. betting on two sides of the coin .. and claiming to be right.

 

Yes, since 911 there are new laws that deal with terrorism; that was in 2001 long before January 6th 2021.

In the lead up to that statement you asked if I thought all January 6th insurrectionists were terrorists and I said "NO". If I was unclear to you, let me be clear now. "I" think that everyone involved in the January 6th insurrection should be prosecuted according to their involvement and if convicted receive that maximum sentence applicable to their crime. I'm not "desperately" anything, if the insurrectionists committed acts of terror, which obviously some did, then charge them appropriately.

What rule of law are you citing, "One person is not to be punished for the actions of another"? Because it's pretty common when a group or gang of people jointly commit a crime they are all charged with that crime regardless of their level of participation.

"What part of .. We can now do the same for any protest where some of the participants engage in violence or property destruction .. "Terrorists .. The Lot of them" -- should such a thing be allowed here ... as dumbass Joe and many of the rest of the Blue Clown show was pushing for."

That's another new wrinkle you're throwing in, "what part of" that have you brought up before? And, more to the point, what the hell ARE you trying to say?

You certainly have twisted my words and misquoted me to make it appear I've said things I never did or intended to. My position is the people that attacked our Capitol should be full prosecuted and given the maximum sentence for crimes they are convicted of. Which, many of them have not been. They've been let off on lesser crimes with light sentences, and I'm not judging the appropriateness of that other than IMHO it encourages a repeat of January 6th. But they have been charged, convicted and sentenced in a court of law and it's not my place to judge the judge.

 

Fla. man sentenced to 5 years for attacking police, the longest Jan. 6 riot sentence yet

A man who watched and cheered the Capitol riot, then moved to the front of the mob and hurled a fire extinguisher, a plank and a long pole at officers, was sentenced Friday to more than five years in federal prison, the longest sentence given so far to someone charged in the Jan. 6 attack.

Robert S. Palmer, 54, of Largo, Fla., pleaded guilty in October to assaulting law enforcement officers with a dangerous weapon, and his original plea agreement called for a sentencing range of 46 to 57 months. But after his plea, and his entry into the D.C. jail, Palmer arranged to make an online fundraising plea in which he said he did “go on the defense and throw a fire extinguisher at the police” after being shot with rubber bullets and tear gas.

That was a lie, Palmer admitted Friday. He had thrown a fire extinguisher — twice — a large plank and then a four- to six-foot pole at police before he was struck with one rubber bullet. The lie indicated a failure to accept responsibility for his actions, prosecutors argued, and when U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan agreed, she increased his sentencing range to 63 to 78 months, ultimately imposing a 63-month term.

Robert S. Palmer, attacked police at Capitol on Jan. 6, given 63 months in prison, longest sentence so far - The Washington Post

 

It doesn't matter what you think ... you are not the one doing the prosecuting - "To the full extent" So when you support this prosecution -- which - and associated political clown show - who are pushing for prosecution for Just what you said NO to ... you are supporting just what you said no to.

Really ... is that how it goes .. .. so you think one rule of law violation justifies another. We can point to asset forfeiture as well .. the fellow who owned a large apartment block in the slums getting charged because someone in the building caught dealing ... and we can trot out a bunch of other examples ... told this is our "Patriotic Duty"

Have you not figured out that if we call the Capitol protestors - and associated affiliates - terrorists . Then we can do the same for any process .. what .. did you think the rules apply only to this situation .. never heard of Precedent ..

.

No I didn't .. as explained above .. you have no idea what you are saying from one sentence to the next .. you say "I don't support all these folks being labeled terrorist" yet support a process which does just that.

 

Reports of officer Sicknick being beaten, while widely reported, were never substantiated and turned out to be a complete lie. He had no external injuries whatsoever. Literally none. It was a blatant lie from the very beginning.

It looks like you are one of the dupes who still believe the ruse.

"Speculation over Officer Sicknick's death was the source of widespread misinformation after the New York Times reported erroneously that protesters had bludgeoned him with a fire extinguisher - a claim the newspaper later retracted."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56810371

 

In one post you ask me what I think and, because you didn't like the answer, it now doesn't matter. I hope you realize your sentence structure lacks ... structure. Since you pick apart everything I say I'm not going to respond to what I can only guess is your meaning.

Well, there you go again, I never said "one rule of law justifies another"; but, in a Nation built on the rule of law, you would think that might be a logical conclusion. And there you go AGAIN, you are conflating things I never said to what I did say; I think. I said if a person is in a group that commits a crime the group is generally charged with the same crime. I said nothing about people not involved with a crime being charged with the crime. I'm sure "we"; do you mean you can, and will, trot out all kinds of BULLSHIT because you've run out of any other argument.

I hope you aren't a lawyer; what the hell are you trying to say? .

Said the pot to the kettle.

 

I hope the best you can muster is more than criticism of typo's .. .. and it is not about liking your answer .. it is about you giving two different answers .. claiming "I don't think all protesters were terrorists" then claiming that you support a process which is trying to claim all these folks were terrorists.

Yes you did - .. "What rule of law are you citing, "One person is not to be punished for the actions of another"? Because it's pretty common when a group or gang of people jointly commit a crime they are all charged with that crime regardless of their level of participation".

You are desperately trying to justify the Capitol Rule of Law violations .. by posting another rule of law violation. So although you didn't say it directly .. that is exactly what you are saying.

.I said " you have no idea what you are saying from one sentence to the next .. you say "I don't support all these folks being labeled terrorist" yet support a process which does just that.

You respond with incoherent gibberish in desperate attempt to avoid responding to your above contradiction -- " Said the pot to the kettle" Do point out where I have contradicted my self --- and if you can't .. you need to quit projecting your failings onto others.

 

"I" have consistently said I think the Capitol insurrectionists should be charged according to the crime they've committed and sentenced to the full extent of the law. AND I have consistently said it doesn't matter what you call them if the are charged appropriately for the crime they committed.

What rule of law violation are you talking about? Please cite code and section so I don't have to read your garbled interpretation.

What process, do I supposedly support, does just ... WHAT?

How could I possibly point out a single contradiction on your part when you can't even compose complete sentences?

 

Hmmm. Now why would McTreason change his tune after dismissing the committee's work as unnecessary?

McConnell Says Public ‘Needs To Know’ Jan. 6 Committee Findings After Opposing Its Creation

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has apparently had a change of heart about the Jan. 6 committee, saying Thursday that “the public needs to know” its findings on the “horrendous event. I think the fact-finding is interesting,” he added during an interview with Spectrum News that aired Thursday. “We’re all going to be watching it.”

McConnell’s newfound eagerness is a markedly different tone than he struck during the creation of the committee. Back in May, he said that an investigation under Democratic leadership would be “slanted and unbalanced.” His position turned some of his members — who had initially expressed support for the idea — against the creation of a commission.

In the same interview this week, he declined to give an “evaluation of the performance of the committee” when asked his thoughts on Rep. Liz Cheney’s (R-WY) revelations this week about Mark Meadows’ role on Jan. 6 and in its build-up. Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) are the only Republicans on the panel.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/mcconnell-insurrection-january-6-committee

Perhaps he now thinks Trumpery is more of a threat to the POT's power than it is useful in regaining it. One thing is certain. It has nothing to do with the benefit to the country from learning the truth.

 

Indeed you have .. and the full extent of the law - if the political clown show gets its way - will deem the protestors and affiliates "Terrorists"

Then you turn around and claim that you don't think all were terrorists. and don't want them prosecuted for terrorism. A raging contradiction.

Do you want all the protestors prosecuted to the full extent of the law - which includes terorism - or not ?

What is garbled interpretation -- you can't figure out " one person is not to be punished for the crimes of another" how about "Equal Justice Under the Law" have you heard of that one - able to figure that one out since the first is clearly too complicated.



"

 

IF they committed crimes that can be charged as terrorism, then they should be charged as terrorists. Succinctly, I think I've already said this, they should be charged and prosecuted appropriately for the crime they committed and sentenced to the maximum indicated for that crime. I've never wavered from that and I fail to see what it contradicts. IF they committed acts of terror that can be charged as terrorism, "I" think they should be; nothing contradictory there.

What legal code are you citing that justifies your statement, " one person is not to be punished for the crimes of another". How does "Equal Justice Under the Law" under the law apply here?

##########
But, just to show you how far afield our debate has gotten, by your repeated attempts to "win at any cost", here is your first reply to a post of mine where I was debating Marine1 about how tRumps DOD had deployed the National Guard to protect the insurrectionists, according to Mark Meadows.

Noone said: ↑
Which obfuscates the point that, apparently, tRump was more worried about his insurrectionists than the Capitol.

Giftedone said:
Not surprising .. Why would Trump not be for the protesters - and this was not an insurrection by any stretch of the imagination - been quaffing down too much of that Blue Kool-aid the folks claiming this are.. some even moronic enough to cry "Coup"

The point of a protest is to create a disturbance is it not ? .. sure it got a little out of hand .. the flames of liberty need to be fanned from time to time .. and who can fault ol Carrot Top for that
##########

We aren't debating anything like the same issue any longer.

 

Disagree.

Conjecture is not proof, much less conclusive proof.

 

Your inability to understand what is being discussed requires one thought at a time - so will focus on this one.

If they committed crimes that can be charged as terrorism -

The whole point here is that the Dems claim all the protestors and affiliates are terrorists - wanting the "committed crimes" to be charged as terrorism. Dems want to make the definition of terrorism include the Capital Riot. .. such that these folks can be charged with Terrorism..

and you agree with this .. "then they should be charged as terrorists"

 

1) how about you be king for a day .. would you randomly start charging one person for the crime of another .. and no .. I am not citing the statute from the Rules of US Justice

2) Equal Justice Under the law .. How .. How mate .. How could this possibly apply here ? How many of the BLM protestors were charged with terrorism .. How many of any protests have been charged with terrorism .. for unarmed protestors who get out of hand and cause injury and property destruction.

baby steps ... uno dos tres - we will get you there....

 

What crime might Trump have committed on Jan. 6? Liz Cheney points to one.

Rep. Liz Cheney’s disclosures of intriguing Jan. 6 text messages between Mark Meadows and both Donald Trump Jr. and Fox News personalities are the big news in the committee’s investigation right now. But don’t lose sight of what Cheney said immediately after she read those texts aloud.

In summing up the texts, Cheney (R-Wyo.) said, “Mr. Meadows’s testimony will bear on another key question before this committee: Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes?”

A casual observer might have missed it, but what Cheney was doing here was pointing to a specific criminal statute — a felony, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 — that she suggests President Donald Trump might have violated. And both its inclusion in her comments and the timing of it shouldn’t be lost on anyone. This was a Republican member of the committee floating a specific potential Trump crime that the committee apparently wants to drill down on; it also came shortly after a federal judge upheld the use of the statute in a key Jan. 6 case.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/14/liz-cheney-trump-crime/

Why it could be important.

Judge upholds prosecutors' use of felony obstruction law in January 6 cases in pivotal ruling
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/poli...n-law-january-6-capitol-riot-cases/index.html

 

Why is it a fact that his staff, his siblings, various members of congress knew that Trump was the only one who could stop it?

 

Disagree. You need a refresher on what "proof" means.

 

First of all, they couldn't have known that for a fact.

Secondly, they were his supporters, so naturally they thought he might be able to influence them.

The problem that you're conveniently overlooking, Pat, is that the Capitol Police are in charge of security at the Capitol. Why did they fail to do their jobs on 1/6 when they have such an excellent record of controlling crowds over the years. That is what I find mysterious.

 

If we can get the testimony of a fairly large number or of the attackers, who all agree on one point, that they did what they did because they believed Trump invited them to the capitol building, and that their acts would have his blessing, that what they did was what he wanted them to do, would that convince you?

 

I understand that you've changed the discussion from Benedict Donald's DOD committing the National Guard to protecting his insurrectionists instead of the Capitol to the semantics of what those insurrectionists will be called and what crimes they will be charged with. Which in that regard the insurrectionist, to this point, have been getting off with very light sentences.

 

The issue of the Police is a separate subject. Even if they succeeded in preventing the crowd from delaying the vote, the crowd would have still put up a big fight and still have made the attempt.

No, they couldn't have know for a fact that it was fact, but they believed it was a fact.

Does the distinction make a significant difference to the question?

No. Because I'll just reword it, since you are pinning me down, noting that the point of the question isn't changed:

Now, with the more accurate question expressed thusly, you may answer the question.

Why is it a fact that his staff, his siblings, various members of congress believed wholeheartedly that Trump was the only one who could stop it?

 

How about "we" stick to "the rule of law" and not change the game again; let's start dealing with the statute from the Rules of US Justice United States Criminal Code instead of something generated by your imagination. Let's not conflate this further to any criminal act of the last 2 years and stick to the topic at hand which is the January 6th 2021 insurrection.

 

We're talking about the office of the President Of The United States.

The Presidents words matter. He has a responsibility to articulate with precision. As president, you are in the big league, the biggest of big leagues, and ignorance doesn't cut it.

His loose lips sinks ships crap will, guess what.....sink ships. (that's a metaphor in case you are metaphor challenged).

In other words, it Doesn't matter what he 'meant', all that matters is what he caused.

"Words are the reason, unfortunately, the events of Jan. 6 occured, because of someone who wasn’t willing to be a gracious loser. And as a result of him falsely claiming that the election had been stolen, we ended up with Jan. 6" --Judge Reggie Walton.