Trump finally understands how to treat this sham. And the sham on the Republic it is and will be.

We obviously need to have a commission on the events of Jan 6th much as we had for 9/11. We need timelines and the names of the people involved in organizing this to determine what actually happened.

Rallies ahead of Capitol riot were planned by established Washington insiders

 

You have live feed footage of people resisting authorities and and fighting to stay in the building against the capitol police funny looks to me mostly like confused people milling about...

 

A commission is most certainly required.

But note this from your link:

"The Republican Attorneys General Association was involved, as were the activist groups Turning Point Action and Tea Party Patriots. At least six current or former members of the Council for National Policy (CNP), an influential group that for decades has served as a hub for conservative and Christian activists, also played roles in promoting the rallies".

"Since the early 1980s, CNP has served as a bridge between Washington’s establishment conservatives and scores of Christian and right-wing groups across the nation. It convenes closed-door meetings for members and wealthy donors at least twice a year. CNP officials and their allies met weekly with White House officials under President Trump, in part to coordinate public messaging about the administration’s agenda, internal videos show. Trump spoke to the group in August."

So here we have it, the continuing promotion by Conservatives of an ideology based on the false Trinity doctrine that totally perverts Christ's teachings as per the Great Commandment and the Sermon on the Mount; and a delusional sovereignty of the individual belief that results in entrenched poverty amidst plenty, owing to different capacities of individuals to compete in free markets.

Of course they didn't expect the outcome of that ideology to be the Capitol riots - riots which have brought democracy itself into disrepute around the world, at a time when national economies are falling over everywhere.

(I wonder if Bin Laden actually planned or even knew beforehand about the 9/11 catastrophe; but it certainly followed his ideology; same as the Islamic firebrand cleric in Indonesia who claims he didn't know about the Bali bombings, which his ideology nevertheless inspired).

 

You haven’t seen all of the videos then.

 

The only thing close to fighting I've seen was a bunch of jackasses tearing down an undefended wrought iron fence outside the building, an unarmed woman shot climbing into a window. Sorry taken in total I'm not buying that as an insurrection looks to me more like some sort of college prank gone wrong. Not a shred of evidence that any one was trying to take over anything.

 

I’ve posted the legal statutes for insurrection and sedition. People were armed. LEO were assaulted. The insurrectionists stopped cold the constitutional process of certifying the electoral college votes. That is by legal definition, insurrection and sedition.

 

And they don't apply...

 

How do federal statutes not apply? Lol

 

Federal statutes do not apply when the action in question isn't as described.

 

and terrorism

 

Sham? no, it;s a coup d'tat.. they finally pulled off a coup d
tat against Pres Trump, his supprters, the USA and the Constitution.

 

This is a referendum, within the POT, on anyone who dares to speak the truth about Trump.

 

We have entrenched poverty because of government policy

 

BS the only person terrorised was the poor woman shot off the capital building and then very briefly unless of course you every one in there was an abject coward. There were more senators and congressmen in the building than protestors by a factor of at least ten to one and the protestors didn't stop crap and shouldn't have. Hell there's more people in the gallery than that on a day to day basis.

Nobody shut down anyone for code pink.

 

This isn't about Trump. Trump nailed it when he said 'they're not after me, they're after YOU and I'm just in the way.' This trial is about what it has always been about- setting the precedent that we can be convicted of the crime of having a political view. Trump obviously didn't 'incite' anything. But if they can convict him of it anyway, they can convict half the nation, and the rule of law in this country will be over, replaced by the rule of the mob. That precedent, if set, will be the end of America and the end of the last, big hurdle to a one world government.

 

a terrorist was shot trying to gain entry to a barricaded door after they saw the guns pointed their way, the others were smart enough to retreat, she tried to climb through

you act like the cops were supposed to invite them in for tea, the cops watched as they busted out the windows of the door, it wasn't until one tried to climb thorough that they shot

the cops would have been justified unloading their guns at the doors at that point, but they remained calm and only shot those trying to gain entry

 

She was shot trying to climb in a window the doors not only weren't barricaded they weren't even locked on queen Nancy's orders.

 

..currently based on the 'sovereignty of the individual' delusion. To get rid of poverty you need to allocate a larger proportion of the nation's output to those living in poverty, best achieved via an above poverty Job Guarantee.

(Link).

MMT: overcoming the political divide. | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics

 

Exactly Trump shouldn't face impeachment he should face federal charges of sedition.. law and order

 

Text book sedition

 

Having a differing opinion on the value of a Senate trial for fmr. President Trump is one thing, but to discount an opposing rationale that you manufacture, yourself, or to ignore facts, or claim that they are "murky" as an argument to not
hold a proceeding to try to clarify them, seems rather disingenuous.

In your 1st quote, below, you are citing your own verdict as if it were not possible that the House impeachment managers could see things differently, & believe that they could prove a different conclusion. "Conspiracy," is not at issue in this trial-- that was the last one. If you do not believe that force was involved, you really should watch the trial, because your news sources are withholding video tape from you. The Capitol police sustained numerous injuries; one or two lost several fingers, another will lose sight in at least one eye, another had his head bashed in & was killed. "Trespassing," is not the only charge being given out to those who the FBI has apprehended but, rather, many other charges, including some with severe punishments. The location of the Capitol building augments the seriousness of the charges; that it occurred while Congress was in session, engaged in the lawful process required for the transfer of power, makes the acts insurrectionist. And this is the charge against Trump: inciting an insurrection.

In this next quote you seem to argue that his choosing to not show up at his trial proves that it is a farce. That's not how it works, or there would be many more people jumping bail. Trump will have a defense team. He has the option of testifying in his own behalf. If he strategically chooses not to, that does not invalidate the proceeding.

The second part of that quote, on its face, argues that the main reason Congress shouldn't do this is so that the DOJ can, in criminal court. Which is odd, since you just stated that you didn't believe any provable crime had been committed.

But that will almost certainly NOT happen. If the Senate holding a trial that it is specifically cited with the duty for, in the constitution, brings so many charges of partisan persecution-- when no criminal penalty can even be handed out-- just imagine the reaction to Biden's Justice Dept. pursuing the ex-president over this. That could potentially set a bad precedent, it would be much more time consuming and fractious for the country than this Senate trial, and, as President Biden wishes to unite the nation, there will be no Federal trial of Trump, unless new evidence of something comes to light that simply can't be ignored.

As to the Senate's right to try a president who is out of office, for an impeachment the House passed while he was still in power, most constitutional scholars disagree with your interpretation by which, then, any president would basically be immune to being held accountable for ANYTHING, his last couple of weeks in office.

This gets to the heart of the case. It's not just about Trump's words to the crowd, but about Trump's inviting the crowd to show up, on that very specific day, and about his baseless but repeated, and inflammatory claims that Biden & the Dems had stolen the election, for the two prior months, starting insinuations even before the election.

Though, to tell you the truth, I'm wondering if Trump doesn't at least half-believe this nonsense himself, which is only more reason not to try him criminally, but adds to the importance of trying him publicly, in the hope of preventing him from coming to power again, whether through the snowball in hell of a guilty verdict by the Senate, or merely from giving a full airing to the truth.

Lastly, you will be happy to hear, I am sure that there will be witnesses called to corroborate these reports of, in your words, his certain dereliction of duty and also the strongest evidence that Trump intended to incite his supporters to an insurrectionist attack on the Capitol.

Even if the ultimate verdict is already known, without at least an attempt at holding Trump responsible for his actions, the message will be sent that, heaven help us, this sort of behavior is, "in bounds," for the president of our United States.

 

"mostly"

What does that mean?

 

^^^ this is great work above and I thoroughly enjoyed reading your thoughts

 

I'm actually going to make my arguments a lot more concise and shallow. Because I don't feel the energy for making a thorough explanation of my thoughts. You cite the police sustaining numerous injuries as proof of the 'force' of the insurrection. But we have to be specific here(laws by nature are specific.). Individual actors may, yes have acted with force but that does not indict the group as a whole(IE: There were more non-violent actors on the whole, than violent actors.)

Since you're going with an insurrection charge, you'd have to prove that violent intent and you really can't do so lawfully with just a handful of actors and circumstances.

Further, trial proceedings are not to 'clarify' charges. Are we at the same place as we were with the Ukraine trial? That, as the Trump lawyers argued at the time is meant for the HOUSE. That's the House's prerogative, not the Senate. The DA gets the evidence from the police, and the DA then makes the charges. From a political perspective, that means the House should have conducted a thorough investigation.

Yes, Nancy Pelosi did the same thing twice via your explanation. No wonder we are where we are as a country.

Of course it does. Trump's no longer President, and the charges have no merit or standing(despite scholar arguments, their arguments are not word of law or constitutional for that matter. And given Justice Roberts's refusal to preside, that should give you a strong indicator where the actual law resides.). Trump not attending is the middle finger this modern day Salem Witch hunt trial deserves. You don't think the DOJ isn't presently investigating the great hope of Trump being in jail? They've scoured for this opportunity forever. Trust me, they're investigating and anything that this farce shows against the notion of sedition could quite possibly(and probably will) end those dreams.

So it appears they've given up criminal prosecution for political persecution. Again, it's an embarrassing look on America but many seem to be fine with embarrassment.

Not so. The House could have acted appropriately. The House could have sent its article while the President was still President. Instead, Pelosi postered about the "nuclear codes". So that facetious argument(much like this whole farce is a farce.) falls on its face. They could have filed the article when he was President, they chose not to do so.

And it's not that a President could get away with 'anything' in his last few weeks. But rather, that the man no longer has the administrative capacity or responsibility as President. It simply isn't possible to 'try' President Donald Trump. The legal entity known as President Donald Trump was no more on the 21st.

Again, legal words matter(no matter how much they disappoint those who'd want otherwise, or scholars clinging to impractical theories.).

The only thing this could accomplish, is to actually help Trump evade any possible legal culpability, if some argue that it exists. I don't have a dog in the fight of this incompetence. I'm just lambasting the political downfall of my country's political system, while laughing at the ones doing it. It's comical, absolutely comical.

This doesn't hold Trump responsible for anything. You think he cares that he's being "impeached" for the second time? He already lost the election, the impeachment isn't even symbolic(of anything but the US Senate's disgrace.). All this does, is possibly put the nail in the coffin of a prosecuting case for Donald Trump, the US Senate holds the bag of a mock public trial in US History and Democrats look even more like idiots.

55 Senators with short term regard for their political body of the Senate, without thinking about life after Trump. The Mock trial will go down as a mock trial, it can't go any other way but that. History books will record it, and the Senate will lose its prestige.

 

It is quite evident that this had been the fall back plan of the Trump. Just from things I have heard it say to reporters over the years, it made it sound as if, even if it lost the election, that its following was so strong, that it would remain in office, regardless of the outcome of the election. Even its aides are saying the plan was to insist it won and hopefully its supporters would do whatever was needed to hand the election to the Trump. It failed with the state legislators and it failed in the courts, because the Trump is insane. It never had the support it thought it had. It was never great, as it thinks it is.

Had the mob succeeded, had they forced Congress to anoint the Trump the winner of the election, I’m sure the Trump would have proudly accepted the win, and continued its reign of error that it has cursed our country with.