Fox News GOP Lawyer/Legal analyst says Trump will be prosecuted

I don't know what it says. I don't fear any politician. I view the federal government as out of control and I blame the voters for making it so. Trump is not an issue for me, just for you.

 

Sure, that would be another example, if you were to consider charging Pelosi with a crime, you ought to first ask yourself what did she know and when did she know it. If they knew a crime was taking place, or they knew that a crime was about to take place, then and only then could you reasonably charge them for their actions, or inactions

 

You are correct about his dereliction of duty. Pence eventually took the lead and called for back-up because Trump ignored all calls/requests to do his job.

However, the question of what he knew and when he knew it is not relevant to the law which takes the stance of "what would a reasonable person do in this situation." For instance, if you look at what happened with Sidney Powell in her defamation suit defense with Dominion, her argument was "No reasonable person would believe my lies about widespread election fraud.". She had to frame it that way because "reasonable" is how the law is applied.

Therefore, looking at the Capitol riot and aftermath, the prosecutors are NOT tasked with determining if Trump knew or didn't know they would turn violent. They are tasked with showing that a "reasonable person" in those circumstances would have known it would turn violent. Here's why:

1. He knowingly told the attendees that Pence had an authority he did not have (he manipulated the crowd).
2. He stepped back and Rudy spoke giving the inflammatory "Fight like hell!" (this was probably planned to keep Trump a few degrees of separation from inciting a riot).
3. He said that he would walk* with them but didn't. It's now coming out that his SS detail denied the request.
4. He may or may not have known that some of the rioters were armed (depending on what statements one believes).
5. He may or may not have wanted the mob to get to then VP-Pence.

Sometimes, it's easier to see things clearly if we interchange the people (do to our own internal biases).

So, let's say that Obama made the same speech. Or Bush, Jr. Or Clinton. The Capitol Chief of Police? Pelosi? Pence?

In a fair and equal society (which we don't live in), our responses to any of the players' involvement should NOT change relative to our laws.

The question remains "What would a REASONABLE person do in such a situation?"

1. He knowingly told the attendees that Pence had an authority he did not have.
A reasonable person would NOT lie to his target audience to fuel their anger.

2. He stepped back and Rudy spoke giving the inflammatory "Fight like hell!"
A reasonable person would NOT allow a lunatic to add gasoline on that fire.

3. He said that he would walk* with them but didn't.
A reasonable person would have the courage and class to walk with his supporters (remember Obama's walk? It was amazing.).

IMO, he never planned to walk with them (because he wanted Pence and possibly Pelosi hurt - he needed to not be in the vicinity). We know this because he did nothing to get them help and he called around trying to get lawmakers to stop the count but never once asked about our VP's or Speaker's well-being. It was even reported that he was angry with the rioters because they failed in their mission.

4. He may or may not have known that some of the rioters were armed.
A reasonable person would defer to their security detail and let them do their jobs. Further, it doesn't make sense that he claims he requested National Guard support and Pelosi denied the request. Why would there be a need for that extra security if he didn't anticipate violence? He's never asked for them for any previous or subsequent rally.

5. He may or may not have wanted the mob to get to then VP-Pence.
A reasonable person would respect his VP's oath of office and not ask him to break the law so there would no cause to be angry enough to unleash an incited mob. He is now claiming that he "never said or even thought of 'Hang Mike Pence'" which all know is untrue. A reasonable person would have responded quickly to those chants and shut it down.

He's making his actions very hard to defend because he won't be quiet. Instead of assassinating Hutchison's character and credibility, threatening other Rs they won't get his endorsement unless they back the Big Lie and other unethical, immoral and/or illegal actions, he should be focused on explaining why there has been a mass exodus around him since 2016. It's easy to say one person is a liar and attention seeker but we're talking thousands of people. These are people that worked with him up close and walked away. They get the slur "never Trumper" but that's not accurate. One would have to be on board with their POTUS in order to work for him. They were Trumpers - tried and true - and they've washed their hands of him. Nobody is shocked that he threw his lunch when angry. That's what toddlers do when they don't like something. I'm not even shocked that he verbally abused his employees and security. That's who he is. He's an @sshole on camera. It's much, much worse behind closed doors as it always is with abusive toxic people.

Our problem right now is the number of people that still defend him and believe he should be above our laws. He probably won't serve prison time no matter what. But, at the very least, and I consider myself a reasonable person (lol) he needs to not be anywhere near an elected position again. If they are whitewashing what happened at the Capitol that day, they have no credibility or foundation to complain about anyone else breaking our laws. I would accept them saying "yeah, that got out of hand but they did commit crimes" instead of attacking people and outright trying to shove their historical revisionism down our throats (yes, I just used that because it's hilarious when they use that to complain about minorites and non-hetersexual people). If those people get a pass after mob attacking cops on camera, nobody should be in prison. Reasonable people are able to accept when they've done wrong and take ownership of their mistakes and none of that ever, ever, ever applies to Trump.

 

Mick Mulvaney has also changed his tune about Bonespurs:

https://www.businessinsider.com/mic...january-6-evidence-obstruction-justice-2022-6

 

Like what---Felonious failure to run away faster?

 

And there ya have it, folks.

 

They would have to charge the entire Congress with this one!!!

 

Sure. Someone who claims to be a conservative and Republican but who supports democrats and their policies as well under the guise of “compromise” while getting no compromise from the democrats. Which makes them nothing more than democrat lites as they’re doing nothing but advancing the democrat agenda.

 

It's more of a hypothetical, I don't have any specific actions or lack of actions in mind for Nany Pelosi. Contrary to what some believe, Nancy Pelosi was not a Capitol Police Board member at the time of the January 6th riot, and the DC National Guard is subordinate solely to the executive branch.

1. Is not in itself a crime, making inaccurate statements, or even outright lies to the public is not considered a crime. One can potentially be sued for defamation if they make a false statement of fact against another party, but even then so it is not considered to be a crime. It is strictly a civil case if that happens

2. Difficult to prove when the actions to carry out said crime were never made. Without any formal actions or orders being given, you couldn't realistically charge him with conspiracy. Taking something into consideration in of itself doesn't constitute as conspiracy, there has to be some formal action or order taken for an official to be charged for misusing their power in a manner that would be considered conspiracy

3. While illegal, it still isn't clear if this would consitute as a crime. Even if Pence made the attempt, criminal charges wouldn't be a guaranteed thing

4. Could definitely be considered a crime, but the difficult part in this charge is proving that what the president did was "pressuring" the state legislators to change the election results. If the president was vague enough in his requests, he could avoid criminal charges. In the case of him being charged, the charges would most likely come at the state level, and not the federal level.

5. This is another case of "what did the president know, and when did he know it?". In order to charge the president for this action, first you have to prove that the action actually took place, then you have to prove that the president was fully aware of what was going on with his associates. Which is difficult to do, even when Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen was charged in New York for making hush payments to influence an election, Trump himself could not be charged, because it could not be proven that he knew what was going on. When Cohen was charged at the federal level for lying to congress, Trump could not be charged since it could not be proven he ordered Cohen to lie to congress.

6. Once again, If it cannot be proven that he knew beforehand that things would turn violent, then you cannot realistically have him charged for this

7. This has the best potential for criminal charges against the president, in my opinion, since he definitely knew at this point that there was an ongoing assault on the capitol, and that things had turned violent. What it comes down to is proving whether or not the testimonies on his conduct are true. There is definitely some potential for him to be charged for 3 as well, but this is less likely to come from the federal government

 

No! Those were in the rotonda and the police already knew about them. I'm talking about the weapons they had at the Elipse. Trump was told that many weapons had been confiscated thanks to the mags. He demanded the mags be removed. And then he told the armed crowd to go to the Capitol and keep him in power with an insurrection. Even though some of the weapons WERE used (Batons, gas canisters, etc) that is irrelevant because the whole point is to demonstrate Trump's mindset.

So, I ask again, what did you think, according especially to Trump's mindset, that they brought all those weapons for.

 

As I've already said, I know what the acronym means. What makes Liz Cheney a RINO? She doesn't actually support any democratic policies at the expense of republican policies, unless you count upholding the law in that category. Do you? Have you guys sunk so for that upholding the law is anti-republican?

 

Liz is as far from a RINO as Trump is a believer in the constitution.

 

The complete disregard and even outright hatred of the law and Constitution from Trump supporters is palpable.

 

Oh no! They had Glocks? AR15s??? What if they only had Rugers and ranch rifles? If armed people wanted to commit violence, why would they need to be "allowed" to proceed?

 

That wasn't known before the attack you can't see the future when somebody's armed you assume they're going to use it

When there is a crowd with guns near a president the Secret Service must assume that they are there to hurt the president

 

A teaspoon of water will not get an arsonist off the hook, sorry.

That 'go peaceful tweet' amounts to a teaspoon of water, considering:

Telling 74 million americans, for over a year, week after week, at every rally, over and over and over again, on every appearance on television, that the only way democrats can win is to rig the election, before any ballot was ever cast, that democrats are stealing the election, that they are committing fraud, that they intend on destroying America, that they intend on eliminating the right to own a gun, a narrative so wrong, so untruthful, a heinous rhetoric to a degree of which was hitherto unheard of by any candidate in history, which created the mantra, "STOP THE STEAL" and the welling anger it caused resulting in the volcanic juggernaut of rage that erupted on Jan 6, a directed mission to 'stop the steal' and resulted in millions in damage and 5 - 7 deaths and delay the certification long enough to throw the election to the house, where he has a two state advantage.

 

If her testimony regarding Trump telling the SS to "take down the mags (metal detectors), let the armed mob in because they won't hurt me', and "we'll march to the capitol" (shouting 'stop the steal' hang mike pence' ) is corroborated, and that very damning evidence doesn't give a competent attorney enough fodder to convince a jury of criminal acts, not to mention the volume of evidence the committee has on his attempts to subvert the election, then that attorney should be ruined for life.

I should think that is a slam dunk.

 

I'm going to ask a question because I don't make assumptions about what other people intended to convey.

Why do you think any of what happened between the attorney(s) involved with Trump and his BS would do anything but raise their street cred with other criminals that want to stay six degrees away from culpability?

 

You're pettifogging the argument.

I thought you could do better than that.

 

LOL! Duh! As if there was ever any doubt.

That is always the purpose of the political show trial.

 

Glad to see you're showing some common sense.

 

I don't think you can challenge my statement "If armed people wanted to commit violence, why would they need to be "allowed" to proceed?"

Metal detectors and signs reading "Gun free zone" only work on law abiding citizens.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Even the righties are seeing now that we got his sorry butt,

All because a 26 yo woman had more balls than all of the rest of the republicans in Washington DC.

And note that she was a die-hard trumper. But she was a patriot first. She is my new hero.

 

That wasn’t a tweet. It was literally part of the same speech you’re talking about. You can’t conveniently just leave out the parts you don’t like.

 

Well for instance Cheney just voted in favor of the gun control bill giving the democrats and Biden a W while prostrating herself before the woke second amendment hating mob.