Lol, police can't do shit.
Capital Hill police and do plenty if there confronted with people of color
You ignored the "trial by combat" part. Address that one.
My doubts about what he did constituting treason have to do with whether or not causing an angry mob to attack a federal building constitutes an act of war.
It doesn't seem to be a very warlike thing to me. If they had lots of bombs and guns and had used them, then maybe it would be.
If you read my prior posts here I made it pretty clear that I don't think arresting and prosecuting Trump is in our national interests because healing and unity is required.
Dispassionate factualism is important to that too. People get lost in echo chambers and are dealing with completely different sets of facts. The truth is the common ground, and if we deny ourselves that then we're never going to be agreeing on much. Look at what you're doing. You're focusing on two statements, ignoring the third, and not considering the whole context.
Trump knew they were angry. Trump knew they believed the election was stolen. Trump sent them to the capitol. What happened was easily foreseeable and Trump didn't seem to take any steps to prevent it. In fact, according to a report from a GoP senator, Trump was "delighted" by what was happening.
Trump has done nothing to be prosecuted for.
You still didn’t address it.
This position is not supported by the evidence. Everything else you said is off topic.
Yeah. It's never liberals who should "address" things. The phrase "trial by combat" is not illegal.
There is nothing to "address". But if there was, your putrid hypocrisy would have prevented me.
This position is not supported by the evidence. Everything else you said is off topic.Abject nonsense. Liberals have made every single charge they're making now since Trump took his oath. You would have some credibility if you didn't claim that everything Trump does is a high crime and that there is "evidence" for it. TDS is not evidence.
So you think it's fine to suggest the outcome of the election should be decided by violence?
There was something for you to address, the phrase you conspicuously left out.
And you have addressed it, so nothing about me prevented you from doing so. Good job!
This position is not supported by the evidence. Everything else you said is off topic.
I haven't claimed that everything Trump does is a high crime.
I'm too old and educated to fall for this liberal trickery. First thing is, election discussion has included war and sport jargon for as long as there have been elections.
It is dumb, disingenuous liberal hysteria that call it "violence". Second, if one party uses fraud in an election, then violence may be warranted sometimes. The U.S. became independent through violence.
There was something for you to address, the phrase you conspicuously left out.It was too stupid to include.And you have addressed it, so nothing about me prevented you from doing so. Good job!Lol. You're still dodging your hypocrisy. Not surprising. You said I had not addressed it, then you said I had. All in the space of of a single post. Did you go back and re-read my post?
I haven't claimed that everything Trump does is a high crime.You are a hypocrite. You know you are. I will not banter with you about it, especially as your dishonesty will cause you to avoid questions. You are intelligent, and liberal people like you think intelligence means you can't be morally reprobate. Your hypocrisy is toxic, and it pollutes every virtue you may have.As I said, when you can face your hypocrisy, let me know. Right now, I have to go puke.
This position is not supported by the evidence. Everything else you said is off topic.Abject nonsense.
Trump caused an angry mob to attack the capitol.
Trump caused an angry mob to attack the capitol.Trump encouraged protesters to march to the Capital Building.
This is hardly the first time protesters marched to the Capital Building.Capital police let protesters into the building.Do you think anti-Trump protesters would have acted any differently if they had been let into the building?Don't you think that Nixon would have loved to paint the anti-war protesters as an "angry mob" of "domestic terrorists"?
This is not relevant to Trump's culpability.
A report by Business Insider, cites an excerpt from the interview where Trump's ex-wife Ivana tells her lawyer Michael Kennedy that Trump reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order and keeps it in a cabinet by his bed.
In those cases the war/sports jargon are metaphors for existing legal, political processes. For example "winning the battleground states" means to earn electoral votes in swing states. So the question arises: what is "trial by combat" analogous to? Any "battle" or "contest" is over. The counting of the votes my Congress is mostly a formality. The only issues to deal with are procedural ones. So if Guiliani isn't talking about literal trial by combat, what is he talking about?
Giuliani is obviously an idiot, but it seems pretty obvious he was speaking metaphorically, not LITERALLY.
Giuliani is talking about Republican officials contesting the certification.
Also, Giuliani is an idiot and I've never voted for a Republican.
This is not relevant to Trump's culpability.Are the people who organized other protests that ended in burning buildings and broken windows also "culpable"?I'm pretty sure only the individuals who actually committed actual crimes are "culpable".
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Giuliani is talking about Republican officials contesting the certification.Not according to Giuliani
For example "winning the battleground states" means...
Do you think violence is warranted here, ethang?
What am I being dishonest or hypocritical about? And why do you keep calling me a liberal?
