To Impeach Trump or?? Consequences for Inciting Insurrection.

Why you posted all of the above - I have no clue - as I we have already discussed 1234 - and are in agreement.


Every protest that goes awry has all these elements. What more would you like said ? You want such folks branded Terrorists - and in fact have gone further that even less offences should be called Terrorism .. anything that breaks the law at one point..

no hole too deep for some .. would that be civil or criminal law ? how about we include civil and call folks terrorists for Jaywalking - should that action cause an accident .. Terrorist bastards !!

Did you see the picture of Adolf in the Michael Jackson video I didn't actually remember that was this video .. just selected for the title. and some of the lyrics.

I get it .. you want the bar for terrorism really low - much lower than happened at the Capital - Down the dark path ya continue to wander - not seeing the error of your ways .. wanting to call mostly peaceful protest - Terrorism and all- and all those involved get tarred with the same brush .. each one responsible for the actions of the whole ... in the borg-land fairy tale

 

I do know there was a capital police officer that shot and killed an unarmed female Trump supporter, but of course that doesn't get all that much attention. There were supposedly a few others that died, but I never heard anyone say how they died.

 

Insurgency has nothing to do with the number of shots fired or who fired them.

Clearly, you've forgotten felony murder law, where the person driving the getaway car and the person planning the event can both be charged with murder if someone dies as a result of the criminal act.

I know of NO case where when a crime happen we prosecute the ones who had guns and let the others go. I've not heard of anything that silly.

Trump should be charged with felony murder as he clearly played an active part in making this insurgency happen, and that insurgency resulted in beating an officer to death.

Republicans see Trump as FAR above the law, as they want to declare him innocent of the insurgency he created. In fact, they want to consier him innocent of attempting to overthrow our dmocracy with violent force.

I don't know WHAT the heck happened to Republicans, but somehow they are now supportive of the overthrow of our form of government.

To think that we would have executed Benedict Arnold for merely passing some information!!

 

The insurgents killed an officer who was defending the Capitol by beating his brains in with a fire extinguisher.

And, the fact that you didn't know that is ASTOUNDING.

I really want to know: where the heck do you get your news?

 

I've only tried to explain the law's definition of "domestic terrorism." And, I don't believe you ever answered my question regarding what were these people rioting over?
Meanwhile, with 25,000 troops now in Washington, D.C., I am wondering what REAL martial law would look like? And, I suspect a lot of people are about to have a lesson in civics the hard way.

 

Many of these folks are claiming that all of the protesters were "Terrorists" Whether they had guns or not. They were involved in a protest where someone had a gun ====>>>> terrorist... and in fact some definitions have not even required guns .. just that they occupied gov't property and caused damage.. those folks are terrorists too ya know..

Yet has there been a definition of terrorism that does not include any protest that turns a bit riotous and does some damage to Gov't building -- some -

I just say .. OK .. your definition includes these folks - and they come back with NO NO NO .. ..

 

Well, we all know where you get your news, and it's not from reliable sources. If it was, you'd have known about the unarmed woman that was shot and killed, of which astoundingly you show no empathy whatsoever.

 

"A bit riotous?" A lot of people were injured and 5 or 6 people killed.

 

Actually .. I have been the one explaining .. you have been the one not paying attention .. regurgitating the same stuff - after we have already been over it 5 times ..like it is the first time.

You have no clue about civics - no respect for essential liberty or the founding principles - and doubt you know what they are - as per the Declaration ... Principles by which law and the constitution is to be interpreted. -

You also clearly have no respect for the Rule of Law - a number of them - or you just don't realize you are in violation -- either way - you are a violator.

 

I comprehend the definition you posted just fine.
And thus: You have no rational basis for your implication that the DC rally/riot was some form of terrorism.

 

Only one of those killed was related to the Protest - and that was the one shot by Capital Security. -- either way who is responsible for these people showing up with conditions -- you want to make everyone at the protest a terrorist on the basis of just being part of the protest - in which some of those protesting were smashing things ... Protest turned into a riot is not that unusual - often can be alot more damage.

What do you want me to tell you .. your have chosen the dark path - and refuse to see the error in your extremist authoritarian ideology ..

 

The woman's shooting is under investigation. The video of the shooting indicates she was among a crowd illegally trying to break a Capitol door down and that he'd warned them. Whether or not that will be considered excessive force is TBD. Washington D.C. requires registration of ALL guns and a Washington D.C. permit to carry a gun. Open carry is illegal. Presumably, that would have been known by those attending the rally and obviously counted on shear numbers to overcome the Capitol protection. Apparently, a few still ignored the D.C. gun laws.

 

The people breaking into the Capitol, ransacking it, and causing injuries (including at least one death, by beating a Capitol Police Officer with a fire extinguisher) are the domestic terrorists. What was your definition of a domestic terrorist?

 

People were hurt some died... people ignored Gun laws - in our gun crazy society - during a protest. Yes -- we know this - been over it 10 times -

This or similar - and often much worse - happens in Protests. The damage in this was was relatively small by comparison to other Protests -

You wish to call all those involved in such Protests "Terrorists" or rather "You Don't wish this" but - your definition includes any protest that goes awry - and so you are living a real world contradiction ....

-

 

The Declaration of Independence is certainly one of our founding documents that launched our revolution (a little late, since King George had already declared the colonies to be in revolt and British troops were already in transit to subdue the rebellion). But, it is NOT part of U.S. law. The colonies transitioned to States and functioned under their own constitutions and the Articles of Confederation. In some ways, the U.S. Constitution ended both the revolution and the Articles and was a "counter revolution," albeit mostly peaceful and popularly ratified by conventions in the states. Example...what was one reason for the revolution? Taxation without representation. What was one of Washington's first military acts as President, the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion over the imposition of Whiskey taxes, in western Pennsylvania.

 

The domestic terrorist charge will not be used in a charge without a criminal law charge as well, that's in the definition...as discussed earlier.

 

LOL on you, dude.

I read sources from all over the place. I even read Fox. I don't go to criminal sites like Parler, etc. Anyone who wants to know what's being said can't stick to one source. So, one down for you.

As for the woman who was shot dead, I have certainly acknowledged that it the past. The thing is, there just isn't that much reason to bring it up. She attacked the Capitol as part of an insurgency that was clearly intent on serious harm to our VP and members of congress as part of the assault on our nation's foundation - democracy. She was illegally entering a secure location by breaking and entering. And, she got shot dead. Is that surprising to you? Serously, I don't know what a lot more of the insurgents didn't get shot dead.

So, strike two!

AGAIN, the definition of domestic terrorism I pointed to is the one VERY clearly spelled out by the FBI.

So, that's strke three. Time for you to head to the dugout.

 

"Capitol Police." I believe they have more legal authority than say a private security service.

 

Hmmm? Apparently, there are now reports of members of QAnon discussing dressing in uniforms to infiltrate the National Guard on Inauguration Day. It's possible that if such reports turn about to be true, as well as organizational ties to the earlier Capitol break-in, QAnon could be declared "a domestic terrorist organization" justifying the banning of its supporters from the U.S. Congress.

 

Absolutely. What weapons they brought has NOTHING to do with it.

The definition of domestic terrorism does not say ANYTHING about weapons or whether they were used.

The definition of felony murder applies to those who weren't even PRESENT.

Also, you're hoping against hope that people will forget that these insurgents had VERY specific and stated objectives. They stated that they came to kill the vise president. They claimed they were there to halt the legal process of our democracy. They claimed they were ther upon the request of the president. They came with zip ties for our elected congressmen - and at the very least that demonstrates an intent to kidnap our highest elected officials of government.

Do you REALLY think that will be forgotten ... EVER? This will be taught in our schools and in the schools of every nation for decades to come.

NOBODY is going to forget that a Republican insurgency attempted to overthrow the democracy of the United States in an armed assault on our Capitol that didn't end until several had died.

 

I suspect that the federal law regarding domestic terrorists is an "add-on" to the criminal charge...such as "Hate Laws," or Civil Rights charges which are designed to allow federal access/involvement to crimes committed in states. There cannot be a domestic terrorist charge w/o an underlying violation of a crime. One example would be the FBI investigation into whether Michael Brown's civil rights were violated with his shooting by a police officer. Incidentally, they found none.

 

The DOI is not Law - nor is it the constitution. The DOI gives the founding principles - by which law and the constitution are to be interpreted.

 

How is this relevant to our discussion - did you think this revelation makes your perspective less Authoritarian or something ?

 

This impeachment of Trump was one of the most blatant abuses of power in US history. No witnesses, no defense allowed, no due process. Everyone who voted in favor of that should be removed from office.

 

Where do you find that in the Constitution?