Lawyer of Arizona man wearing horns during U.S. Capitol riots asking President Trump for pardon

Nope. Elected by the people. Trump is the wannabe Mussolini.

 

the horn man's attorney says Trump is like Jim Jones to his client, just there is no Kool-Aid... he thought he was following Trump's orders

he says Trump should Pardon his client as it's Trump's fault his client did this

problem for Trump is, he has a impeachment trial coming up, if he pardons him, he is admitting it was his fault, so doubt we see him get pardoned

 

Actually, it is the other way around. In my country there is very little debate and "guilty with an explanation" does not even exist. In the U.S. it is a free-for-all where the character of witnesses weighs heavily and can determine the outcome of the trial. Just look at detective Mark Fuhrman and his use of the N-word long previous to the case with OJ Simpson. Anyway, it's not really the point. We are discussing your statement, "Trump invited them to do it is the latest group think of lawyers defending the rioters. ...." and my reply was "That is the job of lawyers: Creating and nurturing shadow of a doubt". If the interpretation of the rioters was that "Trump invited them to do it" then it is a very good defence tactic. Whether they actually felt it was Trump's wish or not is irrelevant.

 

I doubt their action is in question. It is their motivation that is on trial.

 

Legally, yes, but putting the mental illness aside, his motivation was Trump. That's crystal clear.

 

Does he actually say "orders"?

It doesn't need to be "Trump's fault" for him to pardon the guy.

Why would it be an admission of "fault" on Trump's part? Trump didn't need to say "go out and destroy" in order for the guy to interpret Trump's words that way.

 

Yes, that's true. Is that Trump's fault?

 

If he were John Hinkley, no. He's not a lone wolf. Trump is responsible because people acted en masse, in his name. It's not one loon obsessed with Jodie Foster and Ronald Reagan.

 

yep, that was Charles Manson's defense too

 

if one incited people to attack the place they worked at, most would be fired... .which is what impeachment is about

 

seeing the new video and people saying Ted Cruise would want to see this, makes me wonder who else is involved, hope we find out

 

"Does he actually say "orders"?"

his lawyer said "He felt like he was answering the call of our president."

then his lawyer said this

“In 1978 a whole bunch of people in San Francisco followed a guy by the name of Jim Jones down to Jonestown, Guyana –” Watkins began, referring to the cult leader who orchestrated the murder-suicide of over 900 people using cyanide-laced fruit drink mix.

“It was a cult!” Cuomo interjected.

“That’s right. And you know the only thing different here, there’s no Kool-Aid,” said Watkins.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-l...on-in-glitch-filled-trainwreck-cnn-interview/


the horned guys lawyers defense is that his client was part of a cult like following of the President

 

There're two ways to look at it. "Acting en masse", as you say, is an accepted phenomenon that feeds off of itself like mob lynchings or a pack of city dogs that attack humans. Individually they more than likely would not have run amok so you can't always blame a single person. On the other hand, many Nazis were hung for their actions despite having been ordered by their military superiors.

In any case, I am not convinced that Trump is directly responsible but I can believe that the guilty were encouraged by what they honestly believed would please Trump. It's the same thing when people are in a panic mode. They perceive a threat (in this case a political coup) and charge forward believing they are patriots saving the nation.

 

Yes, and an honest defence it was. Manson was railroaded. He belonged behind bars but not for murder. He was innocent of the crime.

But the question remains: Is the defence claiming that Trump had "ordered" him? The difference between being ordered and feeling like he was answering the call is what determines whether or not Trump is culpable, but either way it diminishes this fellow's guilt.

 

were talking about the defendent here, Trump will never be charged with this crime, no past President has ever done time for a crime while in office, that is why we have impeachment, trump should be fired and prevented from ever being hired again

 

Well, the issue for both Trump and Injun Joe hangs on whether or not Trump "ordered" the riot. You said the defence claims he did "order" it but you haven't followed it up.

 

There is an interesting dichotomy to have a guy with horns attacking the Congress filled with congresspeople using a American Flag as a spear.

 

It will be interesting to see.

CNN and Fox both reported that he is planning over 100 pardons this week alone

 

Not surprising.

 

Going inside the Capitol is attacking huh? Well was he charged for going inside the building? One might think that by the Trump administration arresting those people it would please Democrats.

 

Gee shades of Bill Clinton.

 

Biden so far has escaped being charged for his crimes. And he soon will be in the Oval office, not leaving it.

 

Yep. And I was against those too

I honestly think Bill Clinton got paid a lot of money for some of those

 

I think a lot of Americans would support an amendment that limits the pardon power. There's currently only one limit - you can't pardon an impeachment.

It needs to be more restrictive.

 

I was against pardoning Marc Rich, but by the time it was made public, it was a done deal.

Anyway the pardon power is absolute.