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

Which Court determined the election was a fraud? To what authority is Trump referring?

 

Yes, I can comprehend that there are other definitions to the word fight that do not necessarily mean a physical altercation as I have expressed numerous times. However, in this instance where these people’s country was supposedly being stolen from them in a few hours what method of fighting do you believe he meant?
Voting was over
Legal objections had failed
Protests were not working

So how would they have accomplished either of your two definitions? (Remember the vote is currently underway)

 

Well if you listened to his speech you would know. There are the calls to encourage continued investigations. At the current moment the call was to peacefully and patriotically proceed and to cheer on those Senators who continued to support full investigation. Or you could ignore what he called for and supplant it with your own view of what you think he really meant when he called for the opposite.

 

Yes...in his speech, he tells the crowd that since election fraud has been proven (it hadn't), it was OK for Pence to change the rules (i.e. laws) in order to return the certified elector ballots to the States (it wasn't). Then asks them to march on the Capitol (and that he'll lead them - he didn't) to encourage Pence to change his mind. Problem is that he's telling them that at close to the end of his speech and the speech ended at 1:10 PM, ten minutes AFTER Pence announces his decision at the opening of the joint session, that he will follow U.S. law and the Constitution. The Capitol is closed to visitors. Did he think that the crowd would intimidate Pence to reverse his decision and adjourn the joint session? The only way the crowd could intimidate the joint session would be to disrupt it and the only way they could disrupt it was by breaking in to the Building and in doing so, break the law. The crowd does so, and Trump's first tweet, 12 minutes AFTER the first break-in, doesn't ask them to obey the law and stay out of the Capitol, but informs the crowd now in the Capitol that Pence failed them, further inflaming the mob.
In sum, he asked Pence to break U.S. law and violate the Constitution and he incited the crowd to violate U.S. law, tearing down the barricades and attacking the Capitol Police to gain illegal entrance into the Capitol in order to disrupt the joint session.

 

He called on Pence to break U.S. law.

 

I have to "fight" to keep a roof over my head. Do you?

 

I missed my dose of CNN,....thanks, I guess...

 

Sorry but that is not a call for physical violence. That's a huge twisted stretch.

 

That's not the way the Law works down here. If I join ten others to anything, and I take an absolutely passive role other than be there, then I am liable for what is reasonably likely any one of the others might do.

 

No, my home is paid off.

If I said go to the bank and fight the person there or they will seize your home illegally in 45 minutes... What do you believe fight in that context means? Let me guess, you use your normal charming demeanor to go politely ask them to reconsider and if not you graciously thank them for their time. Right?

 

He's using "fight" in the context of working his ass off to get paid. Fight can be a surprisingly multifaceted word that sometimes means "giving it your all." But I do agree that that's not the context Trump was using. Because the elections was already over.

 

Has trump ever used the word treason? What is the penalty for that?

So you really think if your entire nation was being stolen and you had a limited time to act you would go talk?
I would go to literal war if I truly believed that, as would many Americans that place their nation in high esteem so I guess the ones that followed a man around like a cult leader (no one here of course) have a different idea of what patriotism actually is — obviously.

 

I think the impeachment is a sham and a waste of everyone's time, they need to focus on the criminal investigations.
But anyone saying “he didn’t mean violence”.... I mean they have been lying and having tons of cognitive dissonance for several years now so it isn’t surprising

 

Sure.

But the moment Trump's mob ararted breaking into the Capitol building and attacking our legislation body BODIES in the middle of officially determining who won the election, it is IMMEDIATELY time to KNOW that Trump personally knows that the attack is not about keeping a roof on their heads - they are attacking our COUNTRY and Trump, as President has a duty for immeduately send home.

Not a couple hours later. He abandoned his duty as our President and became an attacker of America.

Thar is his Treaon and Insurrection.

 

Where did I say terrorist attack? Try to think without letting your emotions run wild please, because obviously you must be very emotional to state such a lie about me, as surely you aren't naturally a dishonest person....

 

Not the nation, the election. That's what Trump believed and that's what Al Gore believed and that's what Hillary Clinton believed. None of them wanted to go to war over it. You're adding your own fantasies to the opposite of what was spoken. There was no military coup.

 

nope, no leniency, men commit crimes for their love of a woman and visa versa

this man committed a crime for his love of one man... Trump

 

No that is not the point of incitement. Incitement is not based on interpretation or perception of what someone said. To incite violence ereequires specifics from the person commiting it. In otrrher words specific calls for violence which never happened.

 

If they want to use the “fight” line as justification than Pelosi, Harris, Obama, Bernie and a pile of Democrats are all responsible for the actions of their supporters. Evidence is all there. If they claim the term Fight means physical violence and they’re going to ignore context, then we’re ALL ducked.

This is serious, not a sick game Democrats are playing, be wise they’re so filled with rage from 2016.

 

"What are you talking about?" See this is why its almost pointless to talk about these things. Why do people take ONE incident and turn it into the mother of all exaggerated narratives, inflating it to genocidal world war cataclysmic proportions... and then dismiss or outright ignore the literal thousands of other examples, in greater magnitude mind you, to draw comparison to?

We spent 4+ years of watching leftists destroy, burn, loot, riot, attacking, and kill, in the name of their causes and all the the while we saw Democrats in media, in pop culture, and in office encouraging and supporting it. So just admit this isn't about justice, or accountability, or any of these bolstering nonsense we've seen spewn by crocodile tear weeping mofos on the Senate floor. Leftists just want to act superior and use every opportunity to suppress and demonize anyone who doesn't agree with them. I want Republicans to stop playing by rules of sanity and civility and start meeting these leftists on the same field. I want to see them rallying their voters with the strongest language "fight like hell" and what not, and when anything goes wrong just deny deny deny deny deny. Oh, Capitol Riot? "What are you talking about?"

 

Something nobody can answer. So we offer opinions.

 

I can't watch internet videos so there is no point in posting them for me to see. But I don't feel ashamed at all. Not even a little.

 

It's not about you. The post. Shameful post. Your inability to watch a video is not my problem.

 

You made it about me by calling my words shameful. I didn't suggest that not watching videos was your problem. I simply explained why I couldn't read your post. You are really getting pretty rude. If my posts are that uncomfortable for you, perhaps you should put me on your ignore list.

 

I'm very comfortable. You said you felt no shame. I was talking about the post. Whether one agrees with me or not, after watching the video, isn't dependent on your feelings. If you think that's rude, maybe you should put me on ignore.

Yeah, I was a little snarky about your capabilities, but again, it's not about you. I don't reply to posts according to a member's video capabilities. It's a public forum; it's for everyone. I'm sorry if that bothered you. I'll try to be more cordial in the future.