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

He did!

 

Fake News. A Prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, he still looks like an ignorant clown when his case is tossed. We have no shortage of people saying and doing stupid things, let's all take a breath and say and do some intelligent things, just for the sheer novelty of it, who knows, might prove contagious!

​

 

What's silly about it?

We can give the proceeds to the forum. And even if it is, "all work and no play ...."

 

Yeah, it's great to waste time.

 

Sorry dude. "Demand" means to insist, to stand up and voice your concern without equivocation. It is not a call to violence, but rather to democratic and constitutional engagement. It would be reasonable to assume that Trump called for a protest on his behalf to gather and establish a movement towards the 2024 campaign, not to storm the Capitol without guns or cohesion and have it called an attempted coup by his political enemies and a complicit media. The fault lies with those dumb***** who took it upon themselves to go against everything for which the Republican party stands and has always stood.

 

At least 5 firearms were found along with pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails.
Now I'm not saying Trump asked people to come armed but he did promise a wild time in Washington.

 

This ignores two important facts: 1) the crowd came to Washington because they are angry the election had been "stolen", which was a falsehood that Trump bears responsibility for spreading, and for inflaming their anger with his impassioned speech; 2) People were acting on THEIR OWN interpretation of Trump's words, not YOUR interpretation. Someone who is angry, who wants to contribute to "stopping the steal" and who has been led to believe he had the power to do so, would interpret it less benignly than you.

Absolutely, the perpetrators bear blame for their actions, but it was Trump's falsehoods that got them sufficiently inflamed that they would come to Washington, and it gave them reason to believe they could do something. None of this would have happened if Trump had faced reality and admitted he lost, and acknowledged that by Jan 6 - there was no legal course to prevent Biden's election being certified. Trump bears culpability for this.

 

Yes, and I'll add that Trump is very popular with conspiracy theory nuts, such as followers of QAnon. It is irresponsible to throw fuel into those flames.

 

Uh, I hate to tell you this, but, to date, no ham sandwich has ever been indicted.

Trump's crimes are there for everyone to see. This is an open and shut case, in my view.

But, no doubt the new AG Garland will assign a new Special Counsel to look into potential Trump crimes.

 

Please be Hillary Clinton, please be Hillary Clinton.

 

Again with the "no doubt."

It's just as possible that the AG will move on and make a priority of human trafficking, espionage, or industrial pollution and let the State of New York and NYC pursue Trump. The country is very tired and already spent a ton of money on a special iinvestigation of Russia collusion. That was open and shut as well.

Also, if the crime is "open and shut," there is no need for a special counsel. The AG has his own office to prosecute open and shut cases.

 

From which the crowd could reasonably deduce he actually meant "break some windows at the capitol, force some doors, kill a capitol policeman, hunt down the vice president, and hang him"?

I don't think so.

I actually think Trump is resistant to violence, notwithstanding his belligerent talk. Come to think of it, what major military actions did he take in four years, aside from extremely limited missile strikes in Syria and killing a few terrorists?

 

I'll make you that bet, but only IF and WHEN Trump pardon's himself.
But not $100, I'm on social security. How about $20 , per above.

 

I didn't know you were on SS, and therefore withdraw the monetary part of my bet. But I don't understand what the pardon has to do with this. I'll bet $1.00 (one dollar) that he doesn't pardon himself in the first place.

If he does, I think it even less likely that he will be indicted, not because "he cannot pardon himself," but because, if he does, we'll go through more Muller-report style time and hell and money litigating the initial question of the pardon, and then another butt load of money prosecuting him if the self-pardon fails.

 

Au contraire...

If Trump pardon's himself, then AG Garland, or SNDY ( for sure ) will DEFINITELY indict Trump (on something that is open and shut, like the Cohen conviction in which Trump is named as unindicted co-conspirator, for speed --that case is already settled ) just to get that pardon challenged before the SCOTUS, there is no way in hell the new DOJ is going to let a self-pardon set a precedent. Now, there is a small chance a highly conservative SCOTUS will let it stand, but I doubt it, there is nothing inherently 'conservative' about being above the law and violating the oath of office insofar as 'faithfully executing the laws' etc, of the Constitution.

Now, if you are going to argue that the hush money crime occurred before he president, well, it occurred while he was campaigning, noting that the fact that he had yet to take the oath of office doesn't really discount the principle, because, and more importantly, to shoot down the pardon, in point of fact, no crime is needed because it can be done on general principle, it's just that, in order to get the matter before the court, some case, any case, is needed, and that co-conspirator charge is just such a case.

 

I have made no comment on campaign finance violations and won't start now, except to say that if Cohen testifies that Trump specifically ordered payments for the specific and SOLE purpose of influencing an election, as opposed to avoiding embarrassment and trouble at home and damage to his brand, and if 12 jurors believe Cohen, beyond any reasonable doubt, then sure, Trump could go to prison.

It's funny how scumbags like Cohen suddenly become credible when they cast aspersions on those whom we hate, n'est-ce pas?

 

Cohen lied only to protect Trump. He's come clean and has expressed remorse, and admitted he was wrong to ever have backed Trump. What more could you want from a someone? But, my point isn't about Cohen, only that, if Trump self - pardons, the new DOJ will use the fastest, easiest, slam dunk case they can employ as a vehicle to challenge the self -pardon. Because, if Trump is indicted, Trump will say, 'I can't be prosecuted because I have pardoned myself". That is the only reason I bring up the Cohen case. it's not about Cohen in the slightest.

 

Don't wish that on me. That's a multi-faceted assault on my senses.

 

Just like the Biblical Doubting Thomas, unless I can put my finger in the wound in his side and those in his hands I will not believe he has risen.

 

You are using that "easy slam dunk" metaphor a lot, and without ever citing the specific elements of a statute. Indictments are easy to get ... convictions are less easy. Plus you are ignoring the fact that he will be judged by a jury of 12 people who must swear to presume him innocent (!) and then they must find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, or find him not guilty.

If the lawyer asks you, as a prospective juror, whether you will "agree to keep an open mind and presume him innocent and only convict upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt in this case," what will you say? "No, I cannot, because as I was telling Le Chef, this is an easy slam dunk case"(?)
You will be under oath when you answer that question.

So far you have been presuming him guilty, which is as inappropriate a presumption as one can make. I mean, it's 180º out of phase with what the law requires and what the jury will have to swear to before the trial can even start! I don't understand how one can take this position if one believes in justice, and I know that there will be no jury and therefore no trial and therefore no conviction if everyone thinks as you do.

 

The irony would be delicious though after all those chants of ''lock her up''.

 

No, it would rightfully be seen as bitter and partisan. You don't add fuel to fires.

 

Not if you presume him innocent.

And if you don't, you can watch from the sidelines, but you can't play.

Ain't law a bitch?

 

Just in.

The crazy guy with the horns tells the FBI he came to DC "at the request of the President."

Not much, but we're only getting started.

 

Your temperance does you much credit. But that I could show such restraint after all that man has done to sow division and hate.
It is, as you say, a fine line between justice and revenge.