Let's debunk the "Trump didn't tell his followers to riot" argument.

Of course it isn't.

 

Correction: you would LIKE me to comix the two groups so you could have a strawman with which to throw a smokescreen over your Idol's criminal actions.

 

You said

The congressional effort to overturn the results of a democratic election was legal and Constitutional The violence stopped that effort rather than aided it because when congress came back they abandoned the effort to overturn the election.

 

That is yet to be determined, but he certainly committed an impeachable offense.

 

Impeachment is a political not a legal process, preferring chocolate to vanilla icecream is an impeachable offense if it gets half the house and two thirds of the Senate to vote for it.

 

Point?

 

You said it is an impeachable offense. By definition it is.

 

If Trump is responsible for the riots than every Democrat who lied about systemic racism, spoke at a BLM rally or supported BLM is also responsible for all those that died at those ensuing riots.

Democrats have used words like fight and March, or take back, many times. Maxine Waters straight told supporters to get in politicians faces and force them out of areas they “don’t belong in.” Kamala told “protesters” not to stop. But she wasn’t actually referring to the protests. That part of the conversation was about those rioting too.

So fair is fair. When Trump tells people to be peaceful which is apparently code for riot, then Democrats need to start paying back the billions in damage from BLM riots and pay back the families of all the cops who were murdered by BLM inspired violence.

 

Whatabout .... lemme check if I got the right crayon colors for you. "Radical red" was introduced in 1990, that must be it, I'll check if I have one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Crayola_crayon_colors

 

Well, there is a CT being pushed by many on the right that the capitol siege was a false flag op by antifa which is CT, i.e., crazy talk. Your 'indictment' proves what? Nothing, really.

Sullivan is just a con man / nutjob provocateur who craves attention, anyway, he's not antifa, they try hard to be anonymous.
He really should just stick to speed skating.

 

He presents an argument. A very good one, in my view. Your premise is silly.

 

Not a legal one. He avoids all that messy talk of legal principles and precedents because he knows it all cuts against his argument. He's trying to play to his audiences' emotions, and avoiding the facts of the matter. If you found that compelling, I pity you.

 

So far as I can tell, you have plenty to impeach and convict in the Senate. I have yet to see the language of a Federal criminal statute, that I think a prosecutor can use to persuade 12 jurors to convict him of in court, and that the appellate courts will sustain.

Free speech includes a right to inflame the passions of a crowd through public speech, and to provoke a response in that crowd according to SCOTUS and they will not let the language of a sedition or incitement charge be used in a way that criminalizes such provocation, or passion. They want evidence of an intent to induce criminal behavior behind this charge, they want the threat to be imminent and they insist that you convince 12 jurors of every element.

 

Yeah sure.

 

False. Not surprised at the flagrant dissimulation from the above poster. Sullivan's own brother turned him in after becoming aware and alarmed at Sullivan's pre planning for the demonstration, and Sullivan's social media plainly references association with ANTIFA and other violent intent.

Double standards are par for the course dealing with leftists. Any possible scrap of -nothing- that can be pieced together, despite much counterevidence, is suddenly "proof" of Trump's own incitement at the Capitol, and "deadly intent" in Trump supporters. They use hyperbolic terms such as "sedition, insurrection, terrorism" with aplomb, based ONLY on broad, vague definitions and free from any legitimate legal analysis. Symbolic gallows, nooses, angry placard language, twist ties, other regular, well-known demonstration fodder and accoutrement are 100% real threats. "But for X, Trump supporters would have killed bladeblabadeblablabla" with -0- evidence of that.

Collateral injuries or deaths are lied about and exaggerated, a stroke at home after not going to the hospital to get checked out becomes "beaten to death with a fire extinguisher," or "murdered a cop in cold blood." No differentiation is made between the 99% totally peaceful protestors and the 1% violent with illegal intent. They are all suddenly one mass of "insurrectionists." There is more, but that's enough, the thread and their other threads on this topic are full of the same partisan media and shill lie narratives. Any factual counterevidence is dismissed as "conspiracy theories" or "crazy talk."

Then the instant such credible counter evidence emerges to their wild, hyperbolic claims and flip, inapt accusations of serious crimes, it is given the above quoted type of transparent flimflam downplay treatment. Lo and behold, a documented ANTIFA member with a significant history of incitement whose plans were so troubling that their brother turned them in is... just one crank. The next arrest of a LW agitator trying to blend into Trump supporters will be... just another crank, and we haven't even brought that judge's kid up yet. There will be more arrests of LW astroturfed agitators planning to 1. incite and commit violence at a largely peaceful demonstration otherwise, and 2. pin that on Trump supporters.

The only "conspiracy theories" applicable are that Trump's intent was violent, that the hundreds of thousands of protestors had bad intent when only a miniscule percentage of those did anything unlawful, and that LW agitators and fake Trump supporters were not there early planning to accelerate and incite violence. THOSE are the actual conspiracy theories at play in this event.

 

Oh do give up @Sanskrit. There is no way one or even a dozen provocateurs could cause what we saw. Further there is so much video footage that its easy to identify all those involved.

 

Before rioters stormed the US Capitol, Trump supporters called for violence online

"Over the last few days we've seen unprecedented calls for violence online among Trump's most ardent supporters," said Daniel J. Jones, president of Advance Democracy.
He said this has been fueled by President Trump and his election lawyers who have been making "nonstop false claims" about the presidential election being "rigged," as well as by 13 Republican senators objecting to the Electoral College results. "[This] has served to legitimize Trump's position and the conspiracy theorists," Jones said. "The unprecedented violence we're seeing today is a direct result of the president's rhetoric."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/tech/protest-violence-online/index.html

From the perspective of the question, "what kind of behavior qualifies as impeachable," is a violation of law required? No.

Does impeachment require criminal behavior? In a word, “No”

"There is also evidence closer in time to the drafting of the Constitution which indicates that behavior supporting articles of impeachment—i.e., “high crimes and misdemeanors”—need not be crimes. In Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton famously wrote that the subjects of the Senate’s impeachment jurisdiction “are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...hment-require-criminal-behavior-in-a-word-no/

 

he's a US Wash DC prosecutor of 30 years, and I wouldn't presume to know anything of the kind, let alone taking your word for it.
You can't handle the fact that he's responsible for the deaths of 5 people, and there is no way around that fact.

You pity me? Listen to you. My what a lofty perch you occupy. There is no greater stink than the stench of self-righteous indignation.

Get a grip.

 

Double standards? We're talking about one insignificant person. There were over 40,000 trump supporters there.

Give me a brake. Double standards my ass, you are grasping at straws.

Oh, only a small percentage? Yet during the riots you guys made it sound like everyone there were democrats, and that the entire riots were backed by democrats. But, when it's your side of the fence, it's only a 'small group' and of course, they were rogue and Trump had no responsibility for motivating them yadda yadda yadda.

Give me a break.

No one is saying Trump's 'intent' was violent, what we are saying is he motivated these people and he's responsible.

 

You've certainly come a long ways in a short amount of time. Just a few days ago you were asking me to be more civil. Did you forget? Change your mind? Lost the argument and resorted to name-calling?

 

Of those arrested so far, two of the early arrivals at the overwhelmingly peaceful protest were ANTIFA/BLM/professional agitator plants pretending to be and inciting Trump supporters. There were not "40,000 trump supporters there" IN the Capitol or engaged in unlawful activity anywhere near the Capitol or anywhere else for that matter.

There were ~100 arrests by sometime Thursday depending on what biased MSM or shill source is picked. Those run the gamut from curfew violations to more serious charges. Of course lying MSM tries to lump those all together and does not differentiate among them towards their typical exaggerated narratives. Moreover, despite MSM constantly repeating that charges could be upgraded to sedition, all of the charges I've seen are typical run of the mill protester type charges to date with very few if any serious charges.

Stating facts. Refreshing in a sea of hyperbolic, dishonest LW screeching such as in this thread and all the other repetitive dupes of it.

No one said or posted the above dishonest distortion and compound fallacy. It's a fact that Trump's speech was late. It's a reasonable conclusion that legitimate Trump fans would not have rushed off to the Capitol en masse until Trump finished what was one of his last speeches. It's a fact that there was an early wave of -people- at the Capitol and based on emergent other facts, there is NO WAY TO TELL what % of those were legitimate Trump supporters. Anyone can put on a MAGA hat and that's exactly what ANTIFA Sullivan did.

It is an irrefutable fact that only a tiny fraction of a % of people at the protest unlawfully entered the Capitol on 1/6. If you don't like that plain fact, tough.

It is also an irrefutable fact that the vast majority of 1/6 were peaceful protestors who dispersed when told, went home or to hotels before 6 PM curfew and committed no crimes whatsoever.

Any honest account of the event would include an estimated headcount of ACTUAL WRONGDOERS, which should be a very easy estimate to provide. That MSM and partisan accounts here do not differentiate between the overwhelmingly peaceful mass and the criminal few tells us all we need to know about the propaganda we are being encouraged to swallow.

 

I don't know the answer to this, so I ask - was Trump informed about the potential violence by the FBI? Isn't that the kind of thing that he would be told, considering he had planned this rally for some time? Was it in his PDB (that he doesn't read)? If he had been, this makes his choice of wording a whole lot worse.

 

I'm not so sure about that. QAnon was mentioned in an FBI memo from early 2019 as a domestic terror group. Trump not only has refused to denounce QAnon, he invited them to his rally. In my opinion, it would be difficult to argue the POTUS was unaware of this, therefore, knowingly inviting a domestic terrorism group to a rally, then sending them to the Capitol, shows Trump's responsibility. His intent can be shown by his actions/inactions during the riot.

 

I have wondered that myself. I don't know.

 

So if Sanskrit and Hurricanedikta are correct, Trumps supporters did not turn up and storm congress. If true it demonstrates very little support for Trumps call to action.