Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Democrats will stand trial for inciting violence.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by -Jrabbit View Post
    Literally every insurrectionist's lawyer:
    MY CLIENT THOUGHT TRUMP WANTED HIM TO STORM THE CAPITOL AND STOP THE HOUSE VOTE! THAT'S WHAT HE HEARD TRUMP SAY.

    Trump's Lawyers:
    NO SANE PERSON WOULD BELIEVE TRUMP SAID THAT.

    It's the classic "my followers are a bunch of insane idiots" defense.






    It's an interesting variation on the Chewbacca defense.
    Libraries are state sanctioned, so they're technically engaged in privateering. - Felch
    I thought we're trying to have a serious discussion? It says serious in the thread title!- Al. B. Sure

    Comment


    • #47
      I've read Trump was yelling at the TV yesterday...I guess that's what he did when he was in office, but neither golfing nor tweeting...
      Blah

      Comment


      • #48
        And yet you know they believe in QANON. More garbage you heard on the news?

        Comment


        • Buster Crabbe's Uncle
          Buster Crabbe's Uncle commented
          Editing a comment
          -And also JM.

        • Buster Crabbe's Uncle
          Buster Crabbe's Uncle commented
          Editing a comment
          -And also JM.

        • -Jrabbit
          -Jrabbit commented
          Editing a comment
          Not even sure what I'm being accused of. Do I think there were qanon believers among those attacking the Capitol? Yes. It's a documented fact. Do I think they all were? No, that would be ridiculous. There were plenty of regular folks who were Trump supporters, who showed up because Trump told them to. Also well documented. So WTF are you even talking about, Kid? Please try making some sense.

          Fun fact: This post, #48, is the first time the word qanon has been mentioned in this thread.

      • #49
        Only Democrats and QANON followers believe that Trump told people to storm the Capitol.

        Comment


        • Proteus_MST
          Proteus_MST commented
          Editing a comment
          Even if it were so, 100% of all QAnon followers are Trump followers.
          But as JRabbit already wrote ... there must have been lots of "normal folks" as well, who followed Trumps "orders" to meet hm in the Capitol

        • Kidicious
          Kidicious commented
          Editing a comment
          So many logical fallacies, but yes there were normal people there. Some of them went into the building and are being charged. It's crazy to call them insurgents though.

      • #50
        Also, *if* anyone there thought they were part of an insurrection everyone should agree that they are "insane."

        Comment


        • #51
          "Democratic impeachment managers have a duty to explain how Officer Sicknick died.

          NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLEIn its article of impeachment, the Democrat-controlled House alleged that former president Donald Trump, by his “incitement of insurrection,” was responsible for murder. That is an essential rationale for impeaching Trump. It is the most serious accusation that has been leveled. The impeachment article states that, incited by Trump to storm the Capitol and “fight like hell,” Trump supporters “injured and killed law enforcement personnel,” among other heinous acts.


          The accusation about killing law-enforcement personnel refers, of course, to Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick, who was pronounced dead on the night of January 7, more than 24 hours after the siege on the Capitol had ended.

          Adding to the serious but vague accusation in the impeachment article, the Democratic House impeachment managers, who are the prosecutors in the Senate trial, elaborated in their publicly filed pretrial memo (at p. 28): “The insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher.”

          Comment


          • Kidicious
            Kidicious commented
            Editing a comment
            "It is noteworthy that the Democrats’ pretrial memo was filed on February 2, nearly four weeks after Officer Sicknick’s death. Yet, during those four weeks, significant questions about the impeachment managers’ murder allegation have arisen. It has been a bedrock principle of American due process for over half a century that if prosecutors are aware of evidence that would tend to show an allegation they made is false, inaccurate, or at least incapable of being proved, they have an obligation to disclose that fact to the accused.

            So what is the Democrats’ proof that Trump supporters murdered Officer Sicknick by bashing him over the head with a fire extinguisher?"

          • Kidicious
            Kidicious commented
            Editing a comment
            "NR PLUS POLITICS & POLICY
            What Happened to Officer Sicknick?
            By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
            February 11, 2021 1:08 PM
            Share on Facebook
            Share on Twitter
            Share on Flipboard
            Email this article

            Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, D-NY, delivers remarks during the memorial service for Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick, in Washington, DC, February 3, 2021. (Kevin Dietsch/Pool via Reuters)
            Democratic impeachment managers have a duty to explain how Officer Sicknick died.

            NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE
            In its article of impeachment, the Democrat-controlled House alleged that former president Donald Trump, by his “incitement of insurrection,” was responsible for murder. That is an essential rationale for impeaching Trump. It is the most serious accusation that has been leveled. The impeachment article states that, incited by Trump to storm the Capitol and “fight like hell,” Trump supporters “injured and killed law enforcement personnel,” among other heinous acts.

            The accusation about killing law-enforcement personnel refers, of course, to Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick, who was pronounced dead on the night of January 7, more than 24 hours after the siege on the Capitol had ended.

            Adding to the serious but vague accusation in the impeachment article, the Democratic House impeachment managers, who are the prosecutors in the Senate trial, elaborated in their publicly filed pretrial memo (at p. 28): “The insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher.”

            MORE IN WASHINGTON D.C.
            Raskin Opens Impeachment Trial with Devastating Video of January 6 Capitol Riot
            McConnell Declines to Whip Votes for Trump, Remains Undecided on Conviction: Report
            Impeachment Alternative: Is a Courtroom the Better Venue for Judging Trump?
            It is noteworthy that the Democrats’ pretrial memo was filed on February 2, nearly four weeks after Officer Sicknick’s death. Yet, during those four weeks, significant questions about the impeachment managers’ murder allegation have arisen. It has been a bedrock principle of American due process for over half a century that if prosecutors are aware of evidence that would tend to show an allegation they made is false, inaccurate, or at least incapable of being proved, they have an obligation to disclose that fact to the accused.

            So what is the Democrats’ proof that Trump supporters murdered Officer Sicknick by bashing him over the head with a fire extinguisher?

            NOW WATCH: 'Raskin Opens Impeachment Trial with Devastating Video of January 6 Capitol Riot'

            Obviously, ethical and competent prosecutors do not make an allegation of murder in the absence of an investigation. House managers presenting an impeachment case against a former president of the United States have investigative staff, the cooperation of law-enforcement agencies, and access to relevant witnesses and reports, including autopsy reports. If they were not confident about their allegation that Sicknick was brutally killed, it would have been utterly irresponsible and potentially slanderous to make it.

            Despite having time and resources to conduct their investigation, the House managers cite in their February 2 brief a single New York Times article, “Capitol Police Officer Dies from Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage” — published almost a month earlier, on January 8 (the day after Officer Sicknick was pronounced dead)."

        • #52
          Fcking evil man. This country is fcked. Thanks Democrats for fcking up America with these fcking wicked mfers.

          Comment


          • #53
            I saw video of the fire extinguisher incident, looked like some guy threw it into a group of men struggling to support or break thru a barricade. Could be it hit the cop in the head or people saw it in real time or on video and drew the dots between the extinguisher and the cop's death the next day without knowing for sure if he was hit. I'm sure that video has been examined, hopefully they get the guy who threw it.

            Comment


            • #54
              Kid is really turning into the pearl-clutcher around here. Pretty amusing.

              Reminder, Kid: This is a Senate impeachment trial on the actions of Donald Trump. The specifics of the actions of the protesters is a deflection off topic. This is not a criminal trial. It is not a murder trial. It is about Trump's culpability in the attack on the US Capitol, especially in terms of the timing of the attack, specifically during the Senate's certification of the Electoral College votes.

              Fun fact: After the storming of the United States Capitol, Andrew McCarthy wrote an opinion piece in which he stated on January 10th, "I do think the president has committed an impeachable offense, making a reckless speech that incited a throng on the mall, which foreseeably included an insurrectionist mob."
              Apolyton's Grim Reaper 2008, 2010 & 2011
              RIP lest we forget... SG (2) and LaFayette -- Civ2 Succession Games Brothers-in-Arms

              Comment


              • #55
                Originally posted by Berzerker View Post
                I saw video of the fire extinguisher incident, looked like some guy threw it into a group of men struggling to support or break thru a barricade. Could be it hit the cop in the head or people saw it in real time or on video and drew the dots between the extinguisher and the cop's death the next day without knowing for sure if he was hit. I'm sure that video has been examined, hopefully they get the guy who threw it.
                The cop was never hit with anything. It's a lie. They are ****ing liars.

                Comment


                • #56
                  Originally posted by -Jrabbit View Post
                  Kid is really turning into the pearl-clutcher around here. Pretty amusing.

                  Reminder, Kid: This is a Senate impeachment trial on the actions of Donald Trump. The specifics of the actions of the protesters is a deflection off topic. This is not a criminal trial. It is not a murder trial. It is about Trump's culpability in the attack on the US Capitol, especially in terms of the timing of the attack, specifically during the Senate's certification of the Electoral College votes.

                  Fun fact: After the storming of the United States Capitol, Andrew McCarthy wrote an opinion piece in which he stated on January 10th, "I do think the president has committed an impeachable offense, making a reckless speech that incited a throng on the mall, which foreseeably included an insurrectionist mob."
                  There should be a murder trial. Several. Of him.
                  AC2- the most active SMAC(X) community on the web.
                  JKStudio - Masks and other Art

                  God Bless America

                  Comment


                  • #57
                    Originally posted by -Jrabbit View Post
                    Kid is really turning into the pearl-clutcher around here. Pretty amusing.

                    Reminder, Kid: This is a Senate impeachment trial on the actions of Donald Trump. The specifics of the actions of the protesters is a deflection off topic. This is not a criminal trial. It is not a murder trial. It is about Trump's culpability in the attack on the US Capitol, especially in terms of the timing of the attack, specifically during the Senate's certification of the Electoral College votes.

                    Fun fact: After the storming of the United States Capitol, Andrew McCarthy wrote an opinion piece in which he stated on January 10th, "I do think the president has committed an impeachable offense, making a reckless speech that incited a throng on the mall, which foreseeably included an insurrectionist mob."
                    And you sound like an imbecile. Everyone knows this trial is total ****ing bull****, put on by wicked people.

                    Comment


                    • #58
                      Originally posted by -Jrabbit View Post
                      Kid is really turning into the pearl-clutcher around here. Pretty amusing.

                      Reminder, Kid: This is a Senate impeachment trial on the actions of Donald Trump. The specifics of the actions of the protesters is a deflection off topic. This is not a criminal trial. It is not a murder trial. It is about Trump's culpability in the attack on the US Capitol, especially in terms of the timing of the attack, specifically during the Senate's certification of the Electoral College votes.

                      Fun fact: After the storming of the United States Capitol, Andrew McCarthy wrote an opinion piece in which he stated on January 10th, "I do think the president has committed an impeachable offense, making a reckless speech that incited a throng on the mall, which foreseeably included an insurrectionist mob."
                      I'd argue about how foreseeable it was, that was the first time a Trump rally turned into a protest and riot. Now if Trump had spent last summer calling cops racists while neighborhoods were destroyed that might qualify as foreseeable.

                      MAGA 1, BLM 500

                      Shall we take a look at the Democrats' inflammatory rhetoric over that time frame? Hell, Trump's inauguration was met by a riot and Democrats weren't lecturing us about peaceful transitions of power.

                      Comment


                      • -Jrabbit
                        -Jrabbit commented
                        Editing a comment
                        This is not comparative, Berz. It's the impeachment of the President Trump, and "whatabouting" the women's march 4 years ago and "Dem rhetoric" has exactly zero relevance to the issue at hand.

                        On Jan. 6, the Capitol was stormed, over 140 DC cops were injured, with tens of thousands protestors arriving in DC, the date and time clearly advertised by Trump, including millions spent on "save the date" social media ads. It was a clear-cut, desperate attempt by Trump to cling to the Presidency despite being trounced in both popular and electoral votes.

                    • #59
                      No lawmaker nor Trump nor the transition was ever threatened by any of the protests (or riots). BLM wasn't involved in the Trump inauguration protests.

                      You are comparing apples and oranges. In one case senior senators and representatives and the vice-president of the US were threatened with the intent of disrupting the transition of power. In the other case, people were acting on their rights to protest (which then got a little out of hand, but never put any lawmakers at risk). If the insurrectionists had never breached the capital building, it would have been a protest or possibly a riot and not an insurrection/attack. But they did. In 2017, Trump, Pence, Ryan and McConnell were never in danger nor had the possibility of violence used against them.

                      Apples and oranges.

                      JM
                      (The most conspiracy accusation that fits reality is that the police purposefully backed down to support the insurrection or to get the Trumpists in trouble.)
                      Jon Miller-
                      I AM.CANADIAN
                      GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                      Comment


                      • #60
                        It was not fundamentally wrong for the Trumpists to go protest in front of the Capitol. It was fundamentally wrong for them to attack the Capitol with the intention of forcing lawmakers (to in this case behave in unlawful ways).

                        A protest can become a riot due to interaction with the police (and depending it can either be the fault of the protestors or the police). That isn't what happened on the 6th. The protestors, at least some of them, started attacking the Capitol with the intent of staging a coup.

                        JM
                        (I do believe that some who were coming to protest ended up continuing on inside ands so taking part in the coup attempt. I do think that they should be changed with serious crimes... but maybe not as serious as insurrection or as domestic terrorists.)
                        Jon Miller-
                        I AM.CANADIAN
                        GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X