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

There is no reason to legitimize this 'trial' or to dignify it in anyway. Now, let's be clear there's only one time where it had real meaning and purpose: The 6th. Then, and only then when the moment was ripe and juicy(as well as emotions flaring and our logical thinking brains were turned off), did it have actual value to impeach Donald Trump.

But once Democrats played politics with it(as normal), it gave us(and me) a time to step back and analyze the situation. Sure, what happened was unacceptable but was it insurrection by the actual definition? Viking cosplays and stealing podiums and taking selfies with your knees on the desk of a congressperson? No, if anything our security should consider that practice for what would hopefully never come: An actual, real insurrection attempt that actually intends to take over the American Government.

As seen by AOC's humiliating debacle, only even further humiliated by members of the House actually saying "don't question the traumatized", this thing is being milked and exploited, for all its worth(which isn't worth much anymore.)

But there's also no actual proof of Trump calling for an insurrection(much less a riot). There's a hypothetical case that can be built up over Trump's election fraud claims, but all that is is a hypothetical that asks the question: How responsible is a person's word for another's action?

Some have mentioned the famous case where a girl taunted a man into suicide and he actually did so. The difference here, is that the girl's words were directly targeted to the man. Even if she had "jokingly" meant them, the man could only either interpret it seriously or negatively at any rate(there's nothing positive about being told to commit suicide, or basically that you're worthless.)

Compare and contrast here, where Trump essentially speaks to a wide audience and he didn't endorse violence or call for it, sure he may have provoked the crowd into feeling that the election was stolen, but that provocative feeling does not equate necessarily to violence.

One then cites newspaper reports that said that Pence had to call the national guard and Trump's grinning. Rather than asking Trump to testify, if they really wanted to build their case they'd ask Pence and members of the Secret service detail to testify publicly to these reports to build their credibility(as that would be where the pro-insurrection argument would largely rest logically.)

If what was reported was true, it's certainly a dereliction of duty and also the strongest evidence that Trump wanted what happened to happen(along with Trump's incriminating tweet of "this is what happens when an election is stolen"(I'm going verbatim here, so I might not be fully accurate.)

So it's not that there's absolutely no case, but it's not a slam dunk case either. That's what 90% of criminal cases are like, it's not like CourtTV where they show you every successful case and that's how it is. No, there's actually 10-15% of cases where a not guilty verdict is returned.

There's an argument that can be made for the defense, and there's an argument that can be made for the prosecution. That's how 90% of cases are, and they're usually decided just like elections: with swing jurors/swing votes.

But what makes the trial a sham, is that Trump's not president anymore. The Constitution doesn't allow for the political court(and I argue in this day and age Congress shouldn't have this power at all but I digress.) to charge private citizens(it does have a clause that requires citizens to truthfully testify for a 'legitimate legislative purpose', but even this needs to be greatly rewritten. If a citizen has to 'testify' for a 'legitimate legislative purpose', then WHY are we electing them to Congress? It's essentially saying 'citizens, do our jobs for us'

So the whole thing is a crop of crap, coming from us due to the fact that we didn't have a court system at the time of originating the constitution, so Congress was a de-facto court. But now we have civilian, criminal courts. So the Congress having this power now is unnecessary.

The real, proper way for this to be handled is a civilian, criminal court. The real way is to wait for the DOJ to act(if it acts). But the "this is who we are" crowd doesn't want to wait, they want to send a political message. And what they don't realize is that in doing so, the US Senate has become a joke.

This is Brett Kavanaugh, all over again. The US Senate is not the place to elucidate the innocence or guilt of a person, and anytime it does so, the US Senate looks like some 3rd world shithole(yes, shithole and if you feel offended by it it's strange because you're not a citizen of those countries.).

It would appear that 55 Senators are willing to drag the US Senate into the Trump Mud, just to send a message. But that message isn't going to deter anybody, they're going to run for office themselves(see: Majorie). A suppressed minority actually has the ability to attract sympathy.

If you really wanted to build back better, you'd do what you can to put the Trump era behind you. That's what you'd do. And no, I'm not "scared", I endorsed Trump to not attend the trial, because it's a farce. Why would I be scared of a farce? A vote for conviction only frees up future candidates and Trump as a caricature, there's literally no benefit to this for America.

We're not washing 'our guilt' or 'holding anyone accountable', all we're doing is holding a sham trial, for the world to laugh at us. Or would laugh at us, if it were any other person than Trump. Trump as a piñata is a very good sale, a piñata company should make one pronto it would break sales forever.

 

I could not agree more. This is not about justice or accountability anymore. This a referendum on anyone who dares oppose the democrats. This is a chance to label the opposition as evil.

Trump will never be convicted in a criminal trial either because there is just not any evidence strong enough to merit a conviction. It all sounds real good until you get to intent or put all of the evidence into its proper context.

 

that is the only important thing, he did NOT do it. END THREAD! CASE CLOSED! I'm really looking forward to the trial. I'm not sure what side you identify with but I lean to the right and for me its a WIN WIN. If they convict him then the right knows they can take ANYTHING the democrats say and accuse them of ANYTHING they happened to THINK someone MEANT.
If Trump wins, justice will have taken place.
In these crazy times it helps to be glass half full!

 

I identify with the side that it's a joke. America having mock trials literally belittles our name, which the whole point(they say) was to prevent in the first place! It's literally Lulz to me.

 

Sorry, but 1/6 was by definition both insurrection and sedition

FindLaw Legal Dictionary
The FindLaw Legal Dictionary -- free access to over 8260 definitions of legal terms. Search for a definition or browse our legal glossaries.

Insurrection
insurrection n

: the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government
;also
: the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or against the authority of the United States…shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years "U.S. Code"]

https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/insurrection.html

The federal law against seditious conspiracy can be found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code (which includes treason, rebellion, and similar offenses), specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2384. According to the statutory definition of sedition, it is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States:

• To conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States or to level war against them;
• To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States; or
• To take, seize, or possess by force any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/sedition.html

 

And there's no evidence of this conspiracy, or even opposing by force the authority of the US Government. If one argues the trespassing of the capitol(trespassing is what it actually is, and it's what the FBI has been charging) is an opposing by force, one has to argue what force? There's been no established link yet between the bombs and the culprits(hopefully they're found soon and brought to justice.)

So we can't even say that force was used in the trespassing. So yeah, sedition/insurrection is a very hard sell legally, once you actually think about the definition of words.

 

Just forgive and forget. Allow the infestation to fester and turn the whole country into an ignorant pile of conservative insanity. It wasn’t just the events of January sixth, but this insanity has been festering for as long as the Trump first began running for president. The insanity that Right-wing media has been building for a long time.

Fives years of putting up with a corrupt and ignorant non-leader is more than enough. The Trump consorted with Russians and tried to force the Ukraine into supporting the Trump’s corrupted narrative. From day one, the Trump has been instigating violence against our electoral system. From day one, it has been saying that it will not leave peacefully. From day one it has been trash talking and hating on more than half the country. But somehow, this is all forgivable, all just part of the row. Every president should be so lucky to have support from crazies who will attack the Federal process in an effort to hand them a victory that they did not earn. I think that the Trump should be given the Presidential Suite at Guantanamo Bay. Or better yet, a nice cage at the National Zoo. That way all of its supporters can come and pay their respects.


Of all the arrests in the BLM protests, almost all were simple misdemeanors. Most of such low level, that prosecutors declined to prosecute, allowing the protests to continue unabated, day after day.

Those arrested and those under investigation for the breaching of the Capital are facing decades in federal prisons. And you can’t blame it on the Democratic Party or liberals as those doing the arresting and charging, tend to lean to the right, as it takes an authoritarian personality to perform such jobs.

 

@AmericanNationalist, you really seem to be all over the place on this one. That is not necessarily a bad thing because at least you're trying to view this from another perspective.

What I find so disturbing about Jan 6th is that it was predicted, and now that it has happened, all of us are trying to figure out what this means about the state not only of our country, but our neighbors. We have spent the last 4 years in a virtual civil war, on forums such as this one, on TV, social media, and in just about every aspect of our lives. I would venture to say that regardless of where one's political stance is, we are all damn sick and tired of living in two different realities, and those realities are not symmetrical.

I, as well as many other folks, have labeled these interactions with the other side as like dealing with a cult. I have actually lost friends to real religious cults and so to me, this feels the same, that no matter what I say, or what logical arguments I make, or anyone makes, that there is no getting through. And just like a loved one who has been caught up in one of these religious cults, all I can do is simply wait and hope that circumstances finally change where the loved one can see the light of clarity.

Jan 6th became that event for many of Rump's followers, but of course, not all. What the 45th president has shown us are the holes in our constitution. So we are left with the question, do we fix those holes, or do we pretend it was just a minor thing? The incident itself is not the problem, it's the whole of all the years since Timothy McVeigh and his accomplice bombed the federal building in OKC. There is an undercurrent in this country that endangers all of us. We can debate whether the 45th president purposefully used language that inflamed his followers, or whether his character is just so flawed that he did not know what he was doing, but regardless, the events that unfolded on Jan 6th had as much potential as McVeigh's truck bomb.

I don't have an answer to how we stem this undercurrent that the 45th president tapped into for his own political and personal reasons, but doing nothing, or as another thread titled poses, "Do we forgive and forget"? just doesn't add up to a safer and stronger USA to me. Already we see quite a few Republicans vying for a similar spot by mimicking the Rump. We need him to answer for his part. It's the only way to heal.

 

I don't necessarily think I'm all over the place(though I do read this as coming from a place of mutual respect, so I thank you for that.). I was dismayed by the events of January 6th. I think we were all dismayed by the events of January 6th. I think that's the one universal thing that almost everyone can agree on. Literally by polls of 85-90% disapproval of what happened, the country has spoken loudly against the violent attacks on our Capitol.

However, using proper terminology is important because in so doing, we maintain our rights, our values and our laws and not sacrificing them for the moment. This is the exact same circumstance as the coronavirus early on. Do we believe, truly believe in civil liberties and the right to make a living(through jobs, etc) as we know it or were we willing to make those sacrifices and thus, to the other nations we couldn't possibly argue for a higher expression of freedom than we ourselves were willing to allow.


This is not an argument for Donald Trump, there's no longer a need to make an argument for Donald Trump. He's no longer President. This is an argument about the sanctity of our US Congress, and the sanctity of our government. The US Congress at least understands a little about the prickle they unnecessarily forced themselves into, by 'inviting' Trump to testify. Because what is going to happen, a trial by absentia is just more insults to the wounds of the existence of this trial.

But it did Trump no good to testify for several reasons. A: As far as he's concerned and as far as the legal advice is concerned, he's not in any real risk of insurrection or incitement. So, what good would it do him to testify? B: It would sanctify and legitimize the proceedings(at least in the eyes of many) if he were to attend. So by not attending, he proves the point of the utter farce that is this trial.

But the most important thing that Congress can't fix is again: Congress isn't the place for this. Congress isn't a criminal court, with punitive power. Congress is a largely legislative body, that can have political trials for political officers. Historically and traditionally not for former officers(though there were some examples but in no example was a conviction sustained.)

The only ones with power and influence in this manner is the DOJ. And as I had mentioned, by holding this trial you run the very real risk of evidence being displayed that would actually weaken the DOJ. And though Congress because it's not a criminal court, technically it's not "double jeopardy" but it would be a REALLY awful look to a criminal court, and the DOJ would want to avoid that.

There's so many factors that make this trial inherently destructive to the body of Congress and Nation, that it's unbelievable that Senators are going to do this, with no real gains to them. "Tough votes". Not at all. The farce is a farce. No matter what way you vote, it's a farce. It won't be a weapon for Democrats to use in 2022.

None of this is mentioning Leahy presiding, and that the Senate pro tempure is Madam Harris. Yeah, no problems with this at all in terms of optics.

If we want to root out extremism, we do so by promoting good candidates to public office who deliver good results. And that way, people will be satisfied with their elected officials. If bad officials continue to have power, if political incompetence continues to be rewarded then there will be new Trump's, regardless of the outcome of the trial.

 

Trespassing is going where one has no legal right to go. They broke doors and windows to get in. It is not like the doors were open, inviting them in. The woman who was shot and killed, was the first to stick her head through a barricaded door that insurgents had been trying their best to break through.

Imagine the scenario. You are a Capital Police officer tasked with protecting the legislators and their staff. Suddenly an angry mob burst into the Capital and as some of your colleagues lead your charges to safety, your job is to hold off the mob until the national Guard arrives. Even though you and your colleagues have barricaded the doors, the angry mob was breaking through. The first one through was going to get it in the head. He was standing, his gun cocked and waiting.

 

He used lethal defense as was necessary. Stand your ground rules absolutely apply. That's why the FBI has charged trespassing and that's why it absolutely fits. The issue is, we can't call it an 'insurrection' because we can't call it a violent plot to overthrow the government.(Now whether it's because the representatives were well hidden or because they didn't have insurrection intentions) is up for debate.

But the fact that murky waters exist, with regard to Trump's intentions let alone the individual intentions of the rioters(many of whom seem to have had no idea what they were doing, but acted on violent impulses), it's just. a lot harder where words do matter in the course of a criminal trial.

If the FBI hasn't charged insurrection, it's because the DOJ doesn't think the elements fit and honestly they don't. We can use certain words for political semantics, but legally in the eyes of the law, this wasn't an insurrectionist plot or sedition. It was definitely a riot, it was definitely unlawful trespassing.

But a seditious plot? Only in the eyes of those who dared to dream it when they were foolishly plotting on Parler and Twitter, etc.

 

People were armed. They stopped, by force, the co story too al process of certifying the EC votes. As I pointed it, with citation, it was by definition insurrection sedition

 

So you can absolutely show that these armed persons made it inside of the capitol, and "stopped by force the process of certifying the votes". At most, the activity outside delayed it but that doesn't mean that was necessarily their intention(or provable by the court of law.) And who's going to be charged in this conspiracy? Who's the conspirator? Trump? That gets us back to the chicken and egg argument. Did Trump's words incite or were they poised to act anyway?

 

But it was an effort to overthrow the government. Biden clearly won the election but the Trump did everything in its power to overturn the will of the people. Everything from trying to bully state officials, to trying to find loyalists in state legislators willing to illicitly grant him favorable electors, and the frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit in an effort to find a conservative judge willing to risk their reputation and job, to illicitly hand it a win it did not deserve. The angry mob was the last resort. They were under the impression that if they forced Congress to give the election to the Trump, that the Trump would once again, become their glorious leader.

The best thing to come out of this, is the fact that the Trump never had any real power. Did it? It was just a bumbling BS artist that lacked the wherewithal to actually govern. All it could do, was persuade thousands of Americans to dress up in silly costumes and attend rallies of silliness and hate. Yet, in four years, it was never able to transform its rhetoric into actual policy, or even a coherent agenda.

 

Now all you need is evidence that someone actually attempted to overthrow the government, of course an attempt to overthrow the government did actually happen but inspite of all the Democrats sturm und drang, it wasn't January sixth when a few misguided morons walked through an unlocked front door to the capital, and mostly milled around like lost tourists.

 

Yes. We have live news footage, as well as numerous selfies from the insurrectionists.

I showed you the legal statute making this both insurrection and sedition.

 

Did you skip this part?

 

They failed, like everything else associated with the Trump. They failed because they were following a bumbling fool who had no coherent strategy. Was not the Trump doctrine, let other people do things and maybe it will turn out ok. Was that not the Trump campaign pledge, that it would hire the best people who would do the best job. Because obviously the Trump was too inept itself. On the morning of the 6th it was its looney lawyer and half witted son, who where up there on stage, urging the assembled crowd to “STOP THE STEAL”. Front and center, the false narrative that the Trump has been peddling ever since it lost the election.

 

Notice how the Democrats who were liking your post when you were calling for his impeachment before are not liking this post.

Seems as if they don't have an open mind on this.

 

None of which actually happened.

 

You have given me something to consider in regards to whether this should be done via the Senate or the DOJ. The problem is that we have never before been in this predicament. I certainly do not know enough about federal law or Constitutional law to really know for sure. I do know that on Bill Maher's show a couple of weeks ago he had Frank Figliuzzi, former assistant director of counter-intel at the FBI, and he stated the biggest problem the FBI has had in dealing with this kind of homegrown terrorism is that we do not have any laws that address it directly as we did for Muslim terrorists after 9/11. The FBI has been petitioning Congress for years to give them the tools and laws to fight it, but as we can see, we have a pretty divided government.

Now in regards to the last line of your post, I agree with the sentiment, but the problem is that the judgment of many Americans is what is being questioned with this entire debacle. Obviously, we need a law that punishes bad candidates from going full demagogue again but to actually prevent people from making such bad choices requires something else, and that is to a large degree an issue of education. When you look at the big picture, it really looks like college-educated voters vs non-college educated. I know, I know, that's going to bring in calls of "re-education camps" and all that blather that we have in those other threads on PF, but some of the devotional posts of the Rump I have seen on here are rather infantile. I have had to work for people like the Rump. I can spot their chicanery a mile away. Then again, we also have plenty of our fellow citizens who actually believe a total stranger with an Indian accent works for the IRS and believe they owe the government money because "Bob" says he's with the IRS and they can accept gift cards to pay off what they owe. So something is seriously wrong with this picture when so many Americans have become this gullible.

 

Trump's already been impeached twice, I am good with that alone

but I would like to hear the evidence and the witnesses as well, even though we know republicans will be afraid to vote against Trump and will side with the terrorists

 

even the ones that stormed the capital are implicating Trump, with their own words during the 6th and after

 

Uh, we have live news footage and ****ing selfies of it happening lol

 

this is why the Senate needs to present the witnesses and evidence, so people like you know it did happen