Prosecuting Trump for role in Jan. 6 riot got easier thanks to Capitol officers' testimony

No...Qanon would argue it's definitely true...I'm just suggesting these are stories that need to be proven true or false.

 

And do you think this circus of a Jan 6th committee will help that? People were finally accepting the steal and now the dirty democrats wanna shove it in their faces more
This tells me they do not want peace

 

Humm, interesting line of thinking here. Scary actually.

 

Keep wishing.

LINK: 18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

LINK: Transcript Quote - Speech: Donald Trump Holds a Political Rally on The Ellipse - January 6, 2021 | Factbase

No matter what, you will not be able to prove that Trump intended for people to riot or do anything criminal. Even Snopes cannot say with any certainty that Trump intended to incite the riot that happened. Even if they try their best to put it in the most negative light possible.

LINK: Did Trump Tell Supporters To Storm US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021? | Snopes.com

The bold there is just a way of trying to put it in a negative light and connect Trump to white supremacism. Such "rhetorical strategy" is known across MANY types of groups. Even Democrats.

 

My analogy doesn't miss the mark. You just don't understand it because you want to believe something different.

 

It's been reported that Trump discussed it at a meeting. I didn't mention it because the sources are unnamed.

It's not code for anything. Flynn is a Trump associate (who was present at the meeting.) He called for martial law and Trump said nothing. That's tacit approval.

 

'Been reported', yet there is no proof. None. Zero. You can spout these theories all day long but until there is actual proof shown then it's nothing but speculation - conspiracy theories. Sorry, but put something substantial on the table.

Tacit approval? Nice try.

 

So, you can't explain it.

Your analogy misses the mark because it examines one action but not another. The analogy results in someone calling the cops about a bank robbery, then sending people to rob the bank anyway. Makes no sense. What Trump does rarely makes sense. Simple analogies ain't gonna work.

 

And you learned nothing from that.

 

Christ. Did I say it proved anything? I'm not talking about proof. Please, keep up with my replies. I didn't even mention it at first, because it shouldn't be necessary.

My argument is Flynn, who was at the meeting, which happened. Is Flynn a Trump associate? Does the POTUS not notice when one of his associates suggests martial law? If so, why did Trump not settle the matter publically? If not, is Trump too incompetent to be POTUS? Or maybe, just maybe, with this and other evidence easily accessible, Trump considered martial law as a way to stay in power. I'm going with #3. And 2. The incompetent part.

 

You are right that "criminal intent" is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe there are three ways however to do so. One, is a self confession...the defendant simply admits they committed the act with criminal intent. This is basically why Comey couldn't indict Clinton. She never admitted criminal intent. Secondly, a number of credible witnesses to the defendant committing a criminal act knowingly. An example might be an Oval Office meeting with a dozen or so people, with a majority of them testifying they were present when Trump knowingly took part in a criminal plot. Again, in Clinton's case, no one was willing to testify against her. And, the third way would be a verifiable recording of such a meeting.

I suspect there is an investigation in progress along all three lines of approach.

Good speech analysis. Toward the end of the speech, he specifically claims that since election fraud occurred Pence may change the "rules." In this case, "rules" apparently means statute law...so isn't he asking Pence to break the law?

 

I'm asking you it is YOUR assertion and your extrapolation.

 

Cult mentality and behavior. The cult leader knowing his influence and his target market using the power of suggestion.

 

Like Fauci!

 

BLM and Antifa counter protestors who like to engage in violence against their opposition and interfere with their constitutionally protected right to protest.

 

Only to someone with a intent to distract or draw false equivalence.

 

That's a far stretch. Tipping could be an issue.

 

I learned a great deal from that. What do you want to know?

 

When did I say that, Darth?

 

Look at you, going on and on about nothing. Obviously you aren't talking proof. All you have is speculation and conspiracy theories.

Please keep up - if you are going to accuse someone (in this case - Trump wanting martial law) then you need PROOF. Not opinion, guesses, hyperbole, rhetoric, word salad...

 

nuremburg is a good example but a better one is manson, who was convicted of murders that he did not personally commit.

 

You made this thread. Sounds like you are pro Jan 6th committe

 

That's what the acting Secretary of Defense testified they were worried others would try to interfere and the additional security needed. Trump asked about whether there was additional security and he didn't order it or demand it. Of course we know the DC and Capital police turned down the additional security.

Says he requested “10,000 National Guardsmen” for his Jan. 6 rally, but Nancy Pelosi “rejected it.”

According to a Jan. 22 Vanity Fair article, Christopher Miller, then the acting defense secretary, said he met with Trump the night before the attack about a matter unrelated to Trump’s rally the next day. But then Trump asked Miller how many troops the Pentagon planned to deploy the next day in D.C., according to Miller’s account.

There is no clear evidence that Trump made a request for 10,000 National Guard troops, but based on what Miller told the magazine, it appears Trump wondered aloud about what was planned.
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...of-trump-requested-10000-guard-troops-jan-6-/

 

So you have nothing to back up what you posted.....gotcha

 

Oh. I don't care about the committee in either direction. I wasn't aware that posting a topic implied acceptance for whatever the topic is. I've posted a ton of stuff I don't agree with because I want to talk about it.