Proud Boy charged in insurrection blasts Trump's 'deception' in new court filing

Yes some people behaved badly. The missing link is Trump ever calling on anyone to behave badly.

 

Taken as a whole he did. Trump's direct calls to violence go back years.

Certain things can be anticipated. Telling an angry mob to fight can turn violent in an instant. Trump bears responsibility for his rhetoric and his audience.

Telling the Proud Boys to fight means something different than telling soccer moms to fight. Trump of course knows this.

 

I don't believe Trump anticipated what would happen. I think he wanted them to march down that street and have their voices be heard. I don't think anybody anticipated as security was clearly ill-equipped on that day.

 

Whether he did or not doesn't excuse him of the responsibility to know the possible effects of his rhetoric. I think he knew damn well what he was doing, but there is no direct evidence to prove this. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Either way, his own FBI warned about QAnon. There's no excuse for ignorance of this.

 

Well perhaps the FBI should have warned security about the crazies who had infiltrated the gathering so they could have better prepared for what was to follow.

 

Yes, that's my point. Trump was POTUS. Barr was already gone, so whatshisname acting AG was in charge, a Trump loyalist. The Secret Service was of course there, under the direct orders of Trump.

There's no one to blame but Trump. It's Trump's responsibility either way.

 

Not to the other 98% of Trump supporters at the rally, or the 74 million Trump supporters in the nation. Likewise the remainder of the nation were all surprised. This is just more of the same get Trump rhetoric we've heard catapulted around since his inauguration four years ago.

 

The others are irrelevant. The Proud Boys sincerely thought they were Trump's soldiers, acting on his orders.

 

Incorrect, he condemned the action in a very quick manner.

Far quicker than democrats have ever condemned their sides rioting, hell most of the time dems dont condemn it at all. THe embrace the rioting when its their own doing it.

There was no treason, there was no insurrection attempt. That is hyperbolic nonsense driven by hate, not rational thinking.

 

Ah well that changes things, can you point to election in this sentence — just so we are both on the same page:
“If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore”

 

Watch it context and not the edited snip from the house managers and perhaps you'll understand what he was saying.

“That’s why I’ve spent my whole career fighting — and I will continue to fight — like hell” -Biden

 

You are trying to argue nuance now because he did refer to the loss of the nation in a few moments. Which you previously said he didn’t.

So in your Biden example he was obviously not saying he had been in physical altercations... it’s amazing how y’all try and debate anything. Truly

 

It was obvious neither was talking about physical altercations but you want to condemn only the one who doesn't align with your political ideology.

 

You of course, are irrefutably incorrect.

 

False.

I am objectively correct, as evidenced by the dems case against Trump not ever pointing to anything Trump said that actually incited violence.

Their own case fails to prove the claim.

So as usual, I am objectively correct.

 

It isn’t obvious. Hell it wasn’t even obvious to his own supporters. No one took Biden as meaning he was in physical altercations. You can try the “no one took it this way” and I will simply point you to the five people dead over this.

trump has a history of meaning physical altercations from his rally’s where he has offered to pay people’s legal bills and actually advised people to attack non-cult members.

You are not fooling anyone that isn’t already fooled.

I am not saying what he meant, I am not a psychic and he has to my knowledge not said the meaning one way or another. But based on his prior rhetoric in addition to the seriousness of the charges (loss of ones Nation and freedom are pretty massive) it was absolutely inflammatory.

If you honestly and truly believed your nation was about to be lost in a few moments and someone told you to fight to prevent that loss how would you take it? Because if you think that means we should go ask politely or wave your cult flag — then I hope you are never needed to actually defend this nation.

 

False.

5 people are dead over people being angry and acting on that anger despite no one inciting them.

Even the dems case against Trump doesn't point to where he called for incitement. Because they can't because he didn't.

You are fooling anyone who isn't already fooled.

Nothing he said could be reasonably interpreted as inflammatory, nor could it be interpreted reasonably as incitement.

Dems use that same language and are never accussed by other dems of inflammatory rhetoric. Look no further than maxines comments that dems turned on when they forgot she used it to.

Nonetheless, regardless of what happens in the senate. History will remember both impeachments as nonsensical and a badge of honor at this point.

 

Au contraire, I am I am undoubtedly accurate with every word I typed.

You sir, or madam, are indubitably inaccurate.

 

False.

I have beyond any reasonable doubt defended my position. And you, have done everything but defend yours.

From an objective standpoint. I remain correct.

 

Yes he has said something about it. He condemned it as a heinous attack. But I'm sure you won't accept what he says and instead will fall back on political rhetoric.

 

You bypassed the question, let’s try again:
If you honestly and truly believed your nation was about to be lost in a few moments and someone told you to fight to prevent that loss how would you take it? Because if you think that means we should go ask politely or wave your cult flag — then I hope you are never needed to actually defend this nation.

As for him saying something about it, what did he say immediately? How long did it take him to ask for them to stop? And did he complement them when doing so?

 

If I truly thought the election was slipping away under nefarious circumstances I would legally protest and let those who would listen know how I felt about it.

 

You are irrefutably incorrect regarding the totality of your positions.

There isn't a realistic standpoint imaginable where you have ever been correct on anything.

I, of course, remain impeccably correct on every stance I take.

 

How come those of you who claim that the election was a "fraud" are not able or willing to present even one spread of proof?

 

Because they have none. All they have are their feeeeeeeeeeeeelings.