-->
@ethang5
Do you think violence is warranted here, ethang?
Send Trumpet To Jail Now
Posts
Total:
260
-->
@Death23
Incitement of insurrection is an actual crime.
Ok.
So, do you think wandering aimlessly through the Capital Building qualifies?
-->
@drafterman
He says it was in reference to them being allowed to inspect the Dominion machines. Doesn't make a lick of sense, TBH, but that's his explanation.
Thanks for the link.
Yeah, like I said, he's an idiot.
It's basically impossible to "prove" he was trying to "overthrow the united states government" wholesale.
-->
@Death23
This position is not supported by the evidence. Everything else you said is off topic.
Abject nonsense.
No.
Sure it is. Meuller found none of your "evidence". The Senate found none of your "evidence". If Trump sneezes, you deranged never trumpers see it as "evidence".
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? - 3RU7AL
Thank you 3RU7AL. TDS leaves no room for common sense.
It's more probable than not that Trump knowingly and willfully caused the attack on the capitol
And liberals are willing to convict Trump on a "probability". Yet they say he's the fascist.
Asked by 3RU7AL - Are the people who organized other protests that ended in burning buildings and broken windows also "culpable"?
Neither Death23 or Drafterman will answer that. Their hypocrisy and TDS doesn't allow them to.
I'm pretty sure only the individuals who actually committed actual crimes are "culpable".
Not if you're a loony leftist Democrat with TDS.
-->
@3RU7AL
It's basically impossible to "prove" he was trying to "overthrow the united states government" wholesale.
You don't need to prove that. The Brandenburg test requires:
- the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action
- the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action.
So, if there is a crowd outside the capitol building and I go to them and tell them I want trial by combat, and then they immediately storm the building, I think this solidly checks off the second tick.
Obviously Guiliani repudiates the first one, but it would be up whether or not a judge or jury could be convinced of it.
-->
@drafterman
but it would be up whether or not a judge or jury could be convinced of it.
Too bad we can't just hook him up to the old brain-scanner-truth-and-motive-detector.
-->
@3RU7AL
Am I the only one who's amused by the fact that Rudy thinks of himself as a knight while he lawyers?
I didn't want to say this earlier but, my first impression when I saw the video was that "trial by combat" is an emphasis that he is personally willing to put everything on the line.
That's my understanding of the historical pretext behind actual trials by combat.
They tested whether the party sincerely believes in their side of the case.
-->
@3RU7AL
So, do you think wandering aimlessly through the Capital Building qualifies?
Mere bodily presence isn't sufficient. The person must have actual knowledge that the area is restricted.
EDIT: It's 18 USC 1752(a) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752
-->
@3RU7AL
So, do you think wandering aimlessly through the Capital Building qualifies?
Mere bodily presence isn't sufficient. The person must have actual knowledge that the area is restricted.
See the fakery?
First, perchance the person is there to steal, not overthrow the govt. It is Democrats assigning motive. A person who enters a restricted area can have a veriaty of motives.
2nd, they were let in by legitimate authority, the capitol police. So how is it "restricted"?
We have had several people illegally enter the capitol and the White House, how many of them were charged with "insurrection"? None. When BLM/Antifa entered and took over police stations by force, was that insurrection?
The hypocrisy is so thick here, I need a cutlass.
-->
@ebuc
No.
-->
@ethang5
Yes.
-->
@ethang5
So, do you think wandering aimlessly through the Capital Building qualifies?
Mere bodily presence isn't sufficient. The person must have actual knowledge that the area is restricted.See the fakery?
I see confirmation bias.
A person who enters a restricted area can have a veriaty of motives.2nd, they were let in by legitimate authority, the capitol police. So how is it "restricted"?
If there is lawful authority to be in a restricted area then it is not a violation just being there. Brutal didn't ask about that. I linked the code.
-->
@Death23
If there is lawful authority to be in a restricted area then it is not a violation just being there. Brutal didn't ask about that.
Then why did you bring it up? You were being duplicitous. You are assigning motive. A person who enters a restricted area can have a varied motives. You have picked "inserrection" and are pretending your spin is reality. The question required a simple yes or no, your fake "answer" rode in-between the two.
You actually dodged 3RU7AL's questions. No surprise there. Hypocrisy abounds.
-->
@Conway
emphasis that he is personally willing to put everything on the line.
This seems reasonable.
-->
@ethang5
The hypocrisy is so thick here, I need a cutlass.
This morning on the radio, "the news" kept repeating "violent insurrection" this and "violent insurrection" that.
Apparently, "insurrection" isn't scary enough by itself. They've insisted on adding "violent".
Strangely they didn't call the HONG KONG PROTESTS that occupied government offices "a violent insurrection", even though there was also violence.
Do you know who called the HONG KONG PROTESTS "a violent insurrection"?
Chinese officials.
-->
@3RU7AL
Mayor DC calling it 'attempted coup'. You didntmention that one.
There all very serious and not just a simplistic, white boy/girl self guided tour of capital.
-->
@ethang5
You got to work on your fact discipline. Strict and rigid adherence to the facts. Never make anything up. Never represent a fact as true unless you genuinely believe it and you have a reasonable justification for that belief. If you wish to voice your opinions about facts which you think might be true, then qualify those representations.
You were being duplicitous.
This is false. You made this up.
You are assigning motive.
No, I did not assign motive. This was also made up.
You have picked "inserrection" and are pretending your spin is reality.
Brutal argued, implicitly, that what Trump did was not actual crime. Brutal did not seem to understand that inciting an insurrection is an actual crime.
The question required a simple yes or no, your fake "answer" rode in-between the two.
What you don't understand is that I was responding to the statement beneath the question more than the question itself.
You actually dodged 3RU7AL's questions. No surprise there. Hypocrisy abounds.
OK. Here was his question -
Are the people who organized other protests that ended in burning buildings and broken windows also "culpable"?
The answer is "I don't know." The reality is that I don't have enough information about their conduct to answer that question. How the hell am I supposed to form an opinion about the guilt or innocence of someone with this limited information.
It's rather questionable as to whether or not Trump or Guiliani could even be convicted in court because of the 1st amendment free speech standards. The big thing may have to do with the 2 mile walk from the white house to the capitol and that, under 1st amendment jurisprudence, there is the requirement of "imminent" unlawful violence, or something like that. I haven't read much in to it. This issue's not going to protect him from conviction in the senate, and there's also the whole self pardon stuff.
-->
@ebuc
This morning on the radio, "the news" kept repeating "violent insurrection" this and "violent insurrection" that.
Apparently, "insurrection" isn't scary enough by itself. They've insisted on adding "violent".
Strangely they didn't call the HONG KONG PROTESTS that occupied government offices "a violent insurrection", even though there was also violence.
Do you know who called the HONG KONG PROTESTS "a violent insurrection"?
Chinese officials.
-->
@3RU7AL
Mayor DC calling it 'attempted coup'. You didnt mention that one. You need to adjust your thinking to include the Mayors comments if not also others who may cal it a coup, incited/inflamed/inspired by Trumpet over several months now and even before the electron Trumpet said election will be rigged against him.
There all very serious and not just a simplistic, white boy/girl self guided tour of capital.
-->
@Death23
Are the people who organized other protests that ended in burning buildings and broken windows also "culpable"?The answer is "I don't know." The reality is that I don't have enough information about their conduct to answer that question. How the hell am I supposed to form an opinion about the guilt or innocence of someone with this limited information.
Well, you can't prove that the idiot Trump INTENDED for protesters to break things and hurt people.
In the exact same way you can't prove that the BLM and HONG KONG organizers INTENDED for protesters to break things and hurt people.
ANY LAW THAT RELIES ON DETECTING "TRUE MOTIVE AND OR INTENT" IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM WITCHCRAFT.
-->
@ebuc
Mayor DC [HAS AN UNQUALIFED OPINION] calling it 'attempted coup'.
-->
@Death23
This issue's not going to protect him from conviction in the senate,
There is ZERO chance that senate republicans are going to vote to convict.
-->
@3RU7AL
There is ZERO chance that senate republicans are going to vote to convict.
Based on what?
Well, you can't prove that the idiot Trump INTENDED for protesters to break things and hurt people.In the exact same way you can't prove that the BLM and HONG KONG organizers INTENDED for protesters to break things and hurt people.ANY LAW THAT RELIES ON DETECTING "TRUE MOTIVE AND OR INTENT" IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM WITCHCRAFT.
Facts are proven with evidence. There are only degrees of certainty. There is evidence of intent. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Not that I'm aware of.
-->
@3RU7AL
Based on your other comments of violence added to insurrection in infer those people have no qualified oppininion either.
Your trying t have your cake and eat also 3ru. Lacks rational, logical common sense. Your standards have really dropped last serveral months
-->
@Death23
You were being duplicitous.
This is false. You made this up.
You dodged answering the question because your answer for similar scenarios were different. You know this, so you dodged answering. That is textbook duplicity.
You are assigning motive.
No, I did not assign motive. This was also made up.
You said it was insurrection. You did assign motive.
You have picked "inserrection" and are pretending your spin is reality.
Brutal argued, implicitly, that what Trump did was not actual crime. Brutal did not seem to understand that inciting an insurrection is an actual crime.
You are pretending that inciting an insurrection is what Trump did. That is just your biased opinion based on your feelings. We know this because you do not (and did not) call similar and/or worse situations, insurrections.
The question required a simple yes or no, your fake "answer" rode in-between the two.
What you don't understand is that I was responding to the statement beneath the question more than the question itself.
Lol. Yeah. In the non-TDS world, that is called hypocrisy.
You actually dodged 3RU7AL's questions. No surprise there. Hypocrisy abounds.
OK. Here was his question -Are the people who organized other protests that ended in burning buildings and broken windows also "culpable"?The answer is "I don't know."
We know you don't know Death! We're the ones telling you that you don't know. Yet you have already convicted Trump of inciting an insurrection. You don't know.
The reality is that I don't have enough information about their conduct to answer that question. How the hell am I supposed to form an opinion about the guilt or innocence of someone with this limited information.
Yet you've done exactly that with Trump! TDS accounts for the difference in your answers for BLM/Antifa and Trump, and your hypocrisy helps you maintain that bias.
It's rather questionable as to whether or not Trump or Guiliani could even be convicted in court because of the 1st amendment free speech standards. The big thing may have to do with the 2 mile walk from the white house to the capitol and that, under 1st amendment jurisprudence, there is the requirement of "imminent" unlawful violence, or something like that. I haven't read much in to it. This issue's not going to protect him from conviction in the senate, and there's also the whole self pardon stuff.
Nonsense. The whole thing is bogus, from the original silly hysterical charge of "inciting insurrection". Those routers could have killed every lawmaker in the Capitol building and burned it to the ground, and the US govt. would not have collapsed. The democrat's and mass media charge of insurrection is just stupidity, as has been every other hysterical charged flung at him over the last 4 years. You dodge because your charges cannot stand scrutiny.
Facts are proven with evidence. There are only degrees of certainty. There is evidence of intent.
No sir. That is just your bogus spin. There is evidence of your hypocrisy though.
Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Not that I'm aware of.
You've assigned to Trump a particular motive, you're blaming him for the actions of others, and you admit your bogus standard cannot convict BLM/Antifa in a similar case more clear and more violent, yet you have convicted Trump.
I call gross hypocrisy.
-->
@ethang5
Are the people who organized other protests that ended in burning buildings and broken windows also "culpable"?The answer is "I don't know."We know you don't know Death! We're the ones telling you that you don't know. Yet you have already convicted Trump of inciting an insurrection. You don't know.
Uh, you just make stuff up all day long. I didn't convict Trump of anything. My position was that he probably did it. That is an "I don't know", but believing him to have done it on purpose is more probable than not. That belief is based on evidence. Brutal's hypothetical with the BLM protesters - It doesn't even refer to any specific incident, or protest. There is no evidence presented from which to form any belief.
The reality is that I don't have enough information about their conduct to answer that question. How the hell am I supposed to form an opinion about the guilt or innocence of someone with this limited information.Yet you've done exactly that with Trump! TDS accounts for the difference in your answers for BLM/Antifa and Trump, and your hypocrisy helps you maintain that bias.
It's not the same thing. With Trump, there is evidence from which inference can reasonably be drawn. With BLM/Antifa, no specific incident or evidence was presented. Are there some cases where people incited riots or violence and are guilty under some such code with the BLM/Antifa stuff? I'd say almost certainly simply because there are so many incidents that happened. Some are guilty. Some are not, but without a specific case and specific evidence there can't really be a reasonable situational comparison.
BTW, hypocrisy is totally irrelevant, and there isn't any hypocrisy.
It's rather questionable as to whether or not Trump or Guiliani could even be convicted in court because of the 1st amendment free speech standards. The big thing may have to do with the 2 mile walk from the white house to the capitol and that, under 1st amendment jurisprudence, there is the requirement of "imminent" unlawful violence, or something like that. I haven't read much in to it. This issue's not going to protect him from conviction in the senate, and there's also the whole self pardon stuff.Nonsense.
You do realize I was presenting an argument that would probably used as a defense in Trump's favor - Right?
FYI your argument is fallacious:
Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior as being inconsistent with the argument's conclusion(s). This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. It is used frequently, with "whataboutism" being one particularly well known instance of this fallacy. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke's 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest use of the term in the English language.[1]
-->
@Death23
It's rather questionable as to whether or not Trump or Guiliani could even be convicted in court because of the 1st amendment free speech standards. The big thing may have to do with the 2 mile walk from the white house to the capitol and that, under 1st amendment jurisprudence, there is the requirement of "imminent" unlawful violence, or something like that. I haven't read much in to it. This issue's not going to protect him from conviction in the senate, and there's also the whole self pardon stuff.Nonsense.
You do realize I was presenting an argument that would probably used as a defense in Trump's favor - Right?
Only if we first accept your fake charge that Trump is guilty. And this is a common liberal trick. Present an argument "that would probably used as a defense in Trump's favor" and validate that Trump needs a defense, thus validating your original bogus charge. It is nonsense Death. All of it is.
You are a hypocrite. But I did not list that as the reason why your argument is in error. You aren't wrong because you are a hypocrite. That would be the Tu quoque fallacy. You are wrong about Trump because your case against him is illogical. I show the illogic by forcing you to apply your criteria to other cases.
You dodged at first, but when pushed, you had to answer. The question had no satisfactory answer for you because agreeing BLM/Antifa were similar would instantly highlight your inconstancy, but saying that the BLM/Antifa case was different would require you to state that difference. So you again hedged and said you don't know. That my friend is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy isn't what makes you wrong, being wrong is what makes you need to be a hypocrite.
BLM has a website. They stated their purpose. They directly called for insurrection and violence. And in many cities, over many months, there was violence and forceful takeovers of governmental institutions. Yet you stand here telling us that you don't know specific cases with BLM/Antifa, implying that there is more "evidence of incitement" for Trump. I call you a hypocrite only because I don't want to call you a liar.
-->
@ethang5
Only if we first accept your fake charge that Trump is guilty. And this is a common liberal trick. Present an argument "that would probably used as a defense in Trump's favor" and validate that Trump needs a defense, thus validating your original bogus charge. It is nonsense Death. All of it is.You are a hypocrite. But I did not list that as the reason why your argument is in error. You aren't wrong because you are a hypocrite. That would be the Tu quoque fallacy. You are wrong about Trump because your case against him is illogical. I show the illogic by forcing you to apply your criteria to other cases.You dodged at first, but when pushed, you had to answer. The question had no satisfactory answer for you because agreeing BLM/Antifa were similar would instantly highlight your inconstancy, but saying that the BLM/Antifa case was different would require you to state that difference. So you again hedged and said you don't know. That my friend is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy isn't what makes you wrong, being wrong is what makes you need to be a hypocrite.BLM has a website. They stated their purpose. They directly called for insurrection and violence. And in many cities, over many months, there was violence and forceful takeovers of governmental institutions. Yet you stand here telling us that you don't know specific cases with BLM/Antifa, implying that there is more "evidence of incitement" for Trump. I call you a hypocrite only because I don't want to call you a liar.
OK boomer.
-->
@Death23
There is ZERO chance that senate republicans are going to vote to convict.Based on what?
So if all four of these senators ended up voting to convict Trump, 13 others would have to join to have him convicted. [LINK]