Even if they had all stated they were trying to overthrow the government, it would still be idiotic to suggest it had any legs.4th and Inches said:occupying a building isnt the same as overthrowing a govt. anyone who thinks that they were anywhere close to overthrowing the government on January 6 is empty headed.He Hate Me said:Aliceinbubbleland said:
I'm not asking the DOJ. I'm asking those on here who defend the idiotic invasion. I guess you vote they would shake hands if I'm reading your reply correctly.
They had no idea what they were going to do. They were like a dog chasing a moving car who was stunned when he finally caught the tire. Buffalo man and his fellow larpers were going to dissolve the Senate?
Jan 6 committee
134,157 Views |
3026 Replies |
Last: 7 mo ago by Harrison Bergeron
Don't you think AOC believes the Capitol police were working for Trump?4th and Inches said:AOC admits Capitol Police held the doors open on Jan 6 pic.twitter.com/CIql9rlbvE
— Jack Posobic 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 14, 2022
It appears that AOC has become one of the "go to" people in Congress that the News Media goes to, to get an off beat and inaccurate statement for almost any issue.
Another symptom of Idiocracy where our "media" conflates social media posting with competence. #clownworldGuy Noir said:
It appears that AOC has become one of the "go to" people in Congress that the News Media goes to, to get an off beat and inaccurate statement for almost any issue.
Can we get an update on whether she was able to save here abuela, or if she is still languishing in Puerto Rico without food and power?
I don't assume anything, she told you the police officers let them in there's video evidence of as part of the Ashli Babbitt shooting with police officers with A.R.'s standing right there doing nothing as protesters vandalize the building. The police were doing little to repel them almost like they were instructed to.. Trump or Dem leadership, who am I to sayOsodecentx said:Don't you think AOC believes the Capitol police were working for Trump?4th and Inches said:AOC admits Capitol Police held the doors open on Jan 6 pic.twitter.com/CIql9rlbvE
— Jack Posobic 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 14, 2022
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Ok, so what to did the State's actually submit and Pence certify? Let's start and really finish there.Sam Lowry said:There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.RMF5630 said:I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.Sam Lowry said:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.whiterock said:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Sam Lowry said:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.whiterock said:Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!Guy Noir said:Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.whiterock said:almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.Osodecentx said:
Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.Quote:Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.Quote:
Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"
The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.
For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.
Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html
We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.
You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.
One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.
Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.
If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.
Pence accepted the certified electoral votes for counting in his capacity as president of the Senate. He was not acting as a representative of Trump or the Trump administration.RMF5630 said:Ok, so what to did the State's actually submit and Pence certify? Let's start and really finish there.Sam Lowry said:There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.RMF5630 said:I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.Sam Lowry said:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.whiterock said:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Sam Lowry said:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.whiterock said:Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!Guy Noir said:Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.whiterock said:almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.Osodecentx said:
Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.Quote:Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.Quote:
Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"
The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.
For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.
Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html
We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.
You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.
One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.
Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.
If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.
Our democracy is in danger. There are many people that do not believe in our election system. Their are educated postets here that, despite the evidence and lack of evidence believe the election was rigged. Both sides think half of America is evil and way too many voters just vote the party.
I have found theres only two ways to go:
Living fast or dying slow.
I dont want to live forever.
But I will live while I'm here.
Living fast or dying slow.
I dont want to live forever.
But I will live while I'm here.
You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.Sam Lowry said:Pence accepted the certified electoral votes for counting in his capacity as president of the Senate. He was not acting as a representative of Trump or the Trump administration.RMF5630 said:Ok, so what to did the State's actually submit and Pence certify? Let's start and really finish there.Sam Lowry said:There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.RMF5630 said:I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.Sam Lowry said:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.whiterock said:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Sam Lowry said:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.whiterock said:Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!Guy Noir said:Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.whiterock said:almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.Osodecentx said:
Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.Quote:Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.Quote:
Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"
The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.
For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.
Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html
We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.
You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.
One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.
Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.
If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.
I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.
Sort of hard to prosecute...
Are you familiar with the word "attempted?"RMF5630 said:You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.Sam Lowry said:Pence accepted the certified electoral votes for counting in his capacity as president of the Senate. He was not acting as a representative of Trump or the Trump administration.RMF5630 said:Ok, so what to did the State's actually submit and Pence certify? Let's start and really finish there.Sam Lowry said:There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.RMF5630 said:I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.Sam Lowry said:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.whiterock said:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Sam Lowry said:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.whiterock said:Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!Guy Noir said:Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.whiterock said:almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.Osodecentx said:
Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.Quote:Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.Quote:
Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"
The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.
For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.
Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html
We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.
You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.
One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.
Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.
If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.
I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.
Sort of hard to prosecute...
I agree. The probably is the institutions we used to rely on the provide some basic, objective information have all become unapologetically politicized. The same "media" that ran stories for four years about how our voting machines were susceptible to foreign (Russian) interference and suddenly proclaimed we had the most secure voting system in the history of voting.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Our democracy is in danger. There are many people that do not believe in our election system. Their are educated postets here that, despite the evidence and lack of evidence believe the election was rigged. Both sides think half of America is evil and way too many voters just vote the party.
So, attempted can be used for any failed policy decision?Sam Lowry said:Are you familiar with the word "attempted?"RMF5630 said:You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.Sam Lowry said:Pence accepted the certified electoral votes for counting in his capacity as president of the Senate. He was not acting as a representative of Trump or the Trump administration.RMF5630 said:Ok, so what to did the State's actually submit and Pence certify? Let's start and really finish there.Sam Lowry said:There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.RMF5630 said:I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.Sam Lowry said:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.whiterock said:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Sam Lowry said:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.whiterock said:Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!Guy Noir said:Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.whiterock said:almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.Osodecentx said:
Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.Quote:Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.Quote:
Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"
The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.
For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.
Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html
We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.
You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.
One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.
Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.
If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.
I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.
Sort of hard to prosecute...
A Governor submits a Judge who is not qualified and it is determined they are can't hold the office, the Govt should be prosecuted?
An elected official wants a oil rig permitted in the Gulf and not only after they are told no that is not going to happen because it is against statutes and regulations, they should be prosecuted too?
Bottomline, is the certification and whether to accept a slate of electors is a political policy decision, in your world anyone who disagrees and verbalizes should be prosecuted. Taken one step further, any political or policy decision not accepted is cause for prosecution.
Prosecutable acts are those, and only those, that are prohibited by law. And I haven't said anyone should be prosecuted.RMF5630 said:So, attempted can be used for any failed policy decision?Sam Lowry said:Are you familiar with the word "attempted?"RMF5630 said:You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.Sam Lowry said:Pence accepted the certified electoral votes for counting in his capacity as president of the Senate. He was not acting as a representative of Trump or the Trump administration.RMF5630 said:Ok, so what to did the State's actually submit and Pence certify? Let's start and really finish there.Sam Lowry said:There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.RMF5630 said:I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.Sam Lowry said:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.whiterock said:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Sam Lowry said:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.whiterock said:Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!Guy Noir said:Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.whiterock said:almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.Osodecentx said:
Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.Quote:Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.Quote:
Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"
The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.
For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.
Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html
We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.
You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.
One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.
Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.
If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.
I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.
Sort of hard to prosecute...
A Governor submits a Judge who is not qualified and it is determined they are can't hold the office, the Govt should be prosecuted?
An elected official wants a oil rig permitted in the Gulf and not only after they are told no that is not going to happen because it is against statutes and regulations, they should be prosecuted too?
Bottomline, is the certification and whether to accept a slate of electors is a political policy decision, in your world anyone who disagrees and verbalizes should be prosecuted. Taken one step further, any political or policy decision not accepted is cause for prosecution.
Ok, so worse. They should just be raked over the coals publicly on National TV with no standards or thresholds to protect his rights.Sam Lowry said:Prosecutable acts are those, and only those, that are prohibited by law. And I haven't said anyone should be prosecuted.RMF5630 said:So, attempted can be used for any failed policy decision?Sam Lowry said:Are you familiar with the word "attempted?"RMF5630 said:You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.Sam Lowry said:Pence accepted the certified electoral votes for counting in his capacity as president of the Senate. He was not acting as a representative of Trump or the Trump administration.RMF5630 said:Ok, so what to did the State's actually submit and Pence certify? Let's start and really finish there.Sam Lowry said:There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.RMF5630 said:I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.Sam Lowry said:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.whiterock said:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Sam Lowry said:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.whiterock said:Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!Guy Noir said:Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.whiterock said:almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.Osodecentx said:
Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.Quote:Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.Quote:
Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"
The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.
For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.
Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html
We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.
You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.
One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.
Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.
If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.
I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.
Sort of hard to prosecute...
A Governor submits a Judge who is not qualified and it is determined they are can't hold the office, the Govt should be prosecuted?
An elected official wants a oil rig permitted in the Gulf and not only after they are told no that is not going to happen because it is against statutes and regulations, they should be prosecuted too?
Bottomline, is the certification and whether to accept a slate of electors is a political policy decision, in your world anyone who disagrees and verbalizes should be prosecuted. Taken one step further, any political or policy decision not accepted is cause for prosecution.
As least if you charge and prosecute there are standards in place and a process. This way they can just keep throwing out tidbits of information on National TV without any rebuttal or recourse. Ok, that is so much better...
much the same way I attempted to date a super model at 18 yr old.. didnt happenSam Lowry said:Are you familiar with the word "attempted?"RMF5630 said:You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.Sam Lowry said:Pence accepted the certified electoral votes for counting in his capacity as president of the Senate. He was not acting as a representative of Trump or the Trump administration.RMF5630 said:Ok, so what to did the State's actually submit and Pence certify? Let's start and really finish there.Sam Lowry said:There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.RMF5630 said:I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.Sam Lowry said:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.whiterock said:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Sam Lowry said:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.whiterock said:Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!Guy Noir said:Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.whiterock said:almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.Osodecentx said:
Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.Quote:Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.Quote:
Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"
The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.
For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.
Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html
We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.
You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.
One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.
Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.
If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.
I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.
Sort of hard to prosecute...
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
I'm sure the committee would be happy to hear from Trump if he wants to testify.RMF5630 said:Ok, so worse. They should just be raked over the coals publicly on National TV with no standards or thresholds to protect his rights.Sam Lowry said:Prosecutable acts are those, and only those, that are prohibited by law. And I haven't said anyone should be prosecuted.RMF5630 said:So, attempted can be used for any failed policy decision?Sam Lowry said:Are you familiar with the word "attempted?"RMF5630 said:You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.Sam Lowry said:Pence accepted the certified electoral votes for counting in his capacity as president of the Senate. He was not acting as a representative of Trump or the Trump administration.RMF5630 said:Ok, so what to did the State's actually submit and Pence certify? Let's start and really finish there.Sam Lowry said:There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.RMF5630 said:I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.Sam Lowry said:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.whiterock said:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Sam Lowry said:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.whiterock said:Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!Guy Noir said:Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.whiterock said:almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.Osodecentx said:
Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.Quote:Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.Quote:
Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"
The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.
For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.
Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html
We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.
You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.
One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.
Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.
If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.
I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.
Sort of hard to prosecute...
A Governor submits a Judge who is not qualified and it is determined they are can't hold the office, the Govt should be prosecuted?
An elected official wants a oil rig permitted in the Gulf and not only after they are told no that is not going to happen because it is against statutes and regulations, they should be prosecuted too?
Bottomline, is the certification and whether to accept a slate of electors is a political policy decision, in your world anyone who disagrees and verbalizes should be prosecuted. Taken one step further, any political or policy decision not accepted is cause for prosecution.
As least if you charge and prosecute there are standards in place and a process. This way they can just keep throwing out tidbits of information on National TV without any rebuttal or recourse. Ok, that is so much better...
Didn't stop her from slapping you with that restraining order though, did it? Now you see my point.4th and Inches said:much the same way I attempted to date a super model at 18 yr old.. didnt happenSam Lowry said:Are you familiar with the word "attempted?"RMF5630 said:You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.Sam Lowry said:Pence accepted the certified electoral votes for counting in his capacity as president of the Senate. He was not acting as a representative of Trump or the Trump administration.RMF5630 said:Ok, so what to did the State's actually submit and Pence certify? Let's start and really finish there.Sam Lowry said:There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.RMF5630 said:I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.Sam Lowry said:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.whiterock said:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Sam Lowry said:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.whiterock said:Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!Guy Noir said:Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.whiterock said:almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.Osodecentx said:
Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.Quote:Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.Quote:
Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"
The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.
For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.
Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html
We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.
You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.
One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.
Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.
If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.
I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.
Sort of hard to prosecute...
Sure, such as "Sam and Oso attempted to semantically lynch the 45th President of the United States"Sam Lowry said:Are you familiar with the word "attempted?"RMF5630 said:You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.Sam Lowry said:Pence accepted the certified electoral votes for counting in his capacity as president of the Senate. He was not acting as a representative of Trump or the Trump administration.RMF5630 said:Ok, so what to did the State's actually submit and Pence certify? Let's start and really finish there.Sam Lowry said:There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.RMF5630 said:I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.Sam Lowry said:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.whiterock said:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Sam Lowry said:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.whiterock said:Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!Guy Noir said:Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.whiterock said:almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.Osodecentx said:
Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.Quote:Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.Quote:
Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"
The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.
For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.
Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html
We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.
You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.
One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.
Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.
If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.
I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.
Sort of hard to prosecute...
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
That was my dad in a nutshell. More conservative than me, but YDD all the way.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Our democracy is in danger. There are many people that do not believe in our election system. Their are educated postets here that, despite the evidence and lack of evidence believe the election was rigged. Both sides think half of America is evil and way too many voters just vote the party.
Mom was somewhat less conservative than him and always voted R.
Added to the fact that one side is tremendously disinformed about myriad issues.Forest Bueller_bf said:That was my dad in a nutshell. More conservative than me, but YDD all the way.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Our democracy is in danger. There are many people that do not believe in our election system. Their are educated postets here that, despite the evidence and lack of evidence believe the election was rigged. Both sides think half of America is evil and way too many voters just vote the party.
Mom was somewhat less conservative than him and always voted R.
I'd say that estimate is about 50% too optimistic.Harrison Bergeron said:Added to the fact that one side is tremendously disinformed about myriad issues.Forest Bueller_bf said:That was my dad in a nutshell. More conservative than me, but YDD all the way.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Our democracy is in danger. There are many people that do not believe in our election system. Their are educated postets here that, despite the evidence and lack of evidence believe the election was rigged. Both sides think half of America is evil and way too many voters just vote the party.
Mom was somewhat less conservative than him and always voted R.
Jan 6 wasn't a "failed policy decision". Policy is balanced budget, going to war, government healthcare, etc.RMF5630 said:So, attempted can be used for any failed policy decision?Sam Lowry said:Are you familiar with the word "attempted?"RMF5630 said:You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.Sam Lowry said:Pence accepted the certified electoral votes for counting in his capacity as president of the Senate. He was not acting as a representative of Trump or the Trump administration.RMF5630 said:Ok, so what to did the State's actually submit and Pence certify? Let's start and really finish there.Sam Lowry said:There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.RMF5630 said:I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.Sam Lowry said:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.whiterock said:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Sam Lowry said:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.whiterock said:Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!Guy Noir said:Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.whiterock said:almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.Osodecentx said:
Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.Quote:Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.Quote:
Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"
The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.
For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.
Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html
We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.
You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.
One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.
Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.
If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.
I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.
Sort of hard to prosecute...
Bottomline, is the certification and whether to accept a slate of electors is a political policy decision, in your world anyone who disagrees and verbalizes should be prosecuted. Taken one step further, any political or policy decision not accepted is cause for prosecution.
Jan 6 was an attempt to steal the election for Trump. A losing candidate had a bogus slate of electors submitted and wants the presiding officer to throw out the the real slates and substitute the bogus slates. That was Trump's policy, steal the election. He is dishonest and devoid of ethics.
I don't want Trump prosecuted because it would be bad for the country. Prosecuting Nixon would have been bad for the country.
Forest Bueller_bf said:That was my dad in a nutshell. More conservative than me, but YDD all the way.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Our democracy is in danger. There are many people that do not believe in our election system. Their are educated postets here that, despite the evidence and lack of evidence believe the election was rigged. Both sides think half of America is evil and way too many voters just vote the party.
Mom was somewhat less conservative than him and always voted R.
My parents were YDD till Clinton. They were so shocked at his behavior they voted R. Dads gone but mother is a OAN devotee and believes everything they say.
I have found theres only two ways to go:
Living fast or dying slow.
I dont want to live forever.
But I will live while I'm here.
Living fast or dying slow.
I dont want to live forever.
But I will live while I'm here.
At least covid masks have become a reliable "Here's Your Sign."Sam Lowry said:I'd say that estimate is about 50% too optimistic.Harrison Bergeron said:Added to the fact that one side is tremendously disinformed about myriad issues.Forest Bueller_bf said:That was my dad in a nutshell. More conservative than me, but YDD all the way.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Our democracy is in danger. There are many people that do not believe in our election system. Their are educated postets here that, despite the evidence and lack of evidence believe the election was rigged. Both sides think half of America is evil and way too many voters just vote the party.
Mom was somewhat less conservative than him and always voted R.
Only when you wear it "MAGA style."Harrison Bergeron said:At least covid masks have become a reliable "Here's Your Sign."Sam Lowry said:I'd say that estimate is about 50% too optimistic.Harrison Bergeron said:Added to the fact that one side is tremendously disinformed about myriad issues.Forest Bueller_bf said:That was my dad in a nutshell. More conservative than me, but YDD all the way.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Our democracy is in danger. There are many people that do not believe in our election system. Their are educated postets here that, despite the evidence and lack of evidence believe the election was rigged. Both sides think half of America is evil and way too many voters just vote the party.
Mom was somewhat less conservative than him and always voted R.
Sam Lowry said:Are you familiar with the word "attempted?"RMF5630 said:You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.Sam Lowry said:Pence accepted the certified electoral votes for counting in his capacity as president of the Senate. He was not acting as a representative of Trump or the Trump administration.RMF5630 said:Ok, so what to did the State's actually submit and Pence certify? Let's start and really finish there.Sam Lowry said:There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.RMF5630 said:I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.Sam Lowry said:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.whiterock said:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Sam Lowry said:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.whiterock said:Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!Guy Noir said:Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.whiterock said:almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.Osodecentx said:
Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.Quote:Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.Quote:
Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"
The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.
For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.
Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html
We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.
You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.
One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.
Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.
If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.
I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.
Sort of hard to prosecute...
Sure. If only you were familiar with the fact it's not a synonym for hope, dream, wish, ponder, mull over, fantasize, imagine, or muse.
According to the committee, this was part of an elaborate conspiracy to starve you and your wife to death. Your daughter is likely the ring leader as she's consistently fed them table scraps despite your admonishments that they are not good for the dog. Witnesses testified that she was heard saying "Are you a hungry boy? You are a hungry boy aren't you?!?" prior to the disappearance of the chicken.Guy Noir said:Um, what about asking the Vice President to nullify the vote record? Encouraging Jan 6 demonstrators to protest at the Capitol at that time. He stirred up the protestors, who just so happened to storm the building.RMF5630 said:Guy Noir said:
Actually there is a lot of evidence. It is not just testimony by a single White house aide. There is testimony by the previous Attorney General (Bill Barr), the Acting at the time Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the White House Counsel, and numerous others that corroborates each others story. There is also a tweet from Trump himself on Dec 18, 2020 asking other to come protest on Jan 6th. Stating it will be wild.
Have you listened to these testimonies?
Yes I have. Evidence to what? He was pissed? Yeah , he lost and thought he was cheated. Guilty. He wanted to demonstrate and piss off Comgress? Yeah, guilty. He is an asshlle that can be childish? Yeah.
He is guilty of planning a coup of the US Government? No.
There is much evidence. I understand there is not absolute proof, but there is evidence.
My wife was making chicken and dumplings. She cooked 4 chicken breast and left them to cool on the counter. Two of the chicken breast disappeared. My daughter's dog was the only animal in the house that could have reached those chicken breast. We did not have absolute proof about what happened to the 2 lost chicken breast but we had a pretty good idea about where they went.
Are we done yet?
Objection, calls for speculation!Sam Lowry said:Didn't stop her from slapping you with that restraining order though, did it? Now you see my point.4th and Inches said:much the same way I attempted to date a super model at 18 yr old.. didnt happenSam Lowry said:Are you familiar with the word "attempted?"RMF5630 said:You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.Sam Lowry said:Pence accepted the certified electoral votes for counting in his capacity as president of the Senate. He was not acting as a representative of Trump or the Trump administration.RMF5630 said:Ok, so what to did the State's actually submit and Pence certify? Let's start and really finish there.Sam Lowry said:There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.RMF5630 said:I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.Sam Lowry said:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.whiterock said:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Sam Lowry said:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.whiterock said:Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!Guy Noir said:Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.whiterock said:almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.Osodecentx said:
Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.Quote:Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.Quote:
Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"
The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.
For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.
Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html
We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.
You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.
One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.
Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.
If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.
I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.
Sort of hard to prosecute...
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Depends. If the dog was a Democrat he would be celebrating for burning, looting, and murdering the chicken.ATL Bear said:According to the committee, this was part of an elaborate conspiracy to starve you and your wife to death. Your daughter is likely the ring leader as she's consistently fed them table scraps despite your admonishments that they are not good for the dog. Witnesses testified that she was heard saying "Are you a hungry boy? You are a hungry boy aren't you?!?" prior to the disappearance of the chicken.Guy Noir said:Um, what about asking the Vice President to nullify the vote record? Encouraging Jan 6 demonstrators to protest at the Capitol at that time. He stirred up the protestors, who just so happened to storm the building.RMF5630 said:Guy Noir said:
Actually there is a lot of evidence. It is not just testimony by a single White house aide. There is testimony by the previous Attorney General (Bill Barr), the Acting at the time Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the White House Counsel, and numerous others that corroborates each others story. There is also a tweet from Trump himself on Dec 18, 2020 asking other to come protest on Jan 6th. Stating it will be wild.
Have you listened to these testimonies?
Yes I have. Evidence to what? He was pissed? Yeah , he lost and thought he was cheated. Guilty. He wanted to demonstrate and piss off Comgress? Yeah, guilty. He is an asshlle that can be childish? Yeah.
He is guilty of planning a coup of the US Government? No.
There is much evidence. I understand there is not absolute proof, but there is evidence.
My wife was making chicken and dumplings. She cooked 4 chicken breast and left them to cool on the counter. Two of the chicken breast disappeared. My daughter's dog was the only animal in the house that could have reached those chicken breast. We did not have absolute proof about what happened to the 2 lost chicken breast but we had a pretty good idea about where they went.
Are we done yet?
Way more than Maga wore them incorrectly. Can't tell you how many I've seen covering the mouth and not the nose and having no clue it was incorrect.Sam Lowry said:Only when you wear it "MAGA style."Harrison Bergeron said:At least covid masks have become a reliable "Here's Your Sign."Sam Lowry said:I'd say that estimate is about 50% too optimistic.Harrison Bergeron said:Added to the fact that one side is tremendously disinformed about myriad issues.Forest Bueller_bf said:That was my dad in a nutshell. More conservative than me, but YDD all the way.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Our democracy is in danger. There are many people that do not believe in our election system. Their are educated postets here that, despite the evidence and lack of evidence believe the election was rigged. Both sides think half of America is evil and way too many voters just vote the party.
Mom was somewhat less conservative than him and always voted R.
Osodecentx said:Jan 6 wasn't a "failed policy decision". Policy is balanced budget, going to war, government healthcare, etc.RMF5630 said:So, attempted can be used for any failed policy decision?Sam Lowry said:Are you familiar with the word "attempted?"RMF5630 said:You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.Sam Lowry said:Pence accepted the certified electoral votes for counting in his capacity as president of the Senate. He was not acting as a representative of Trump or the Trump administration.RMF5630 said:Ok, so what to did the State's actually submit and Pence certify? Let's start and really finish there.Sam Lowry said:There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.RMF5630 said:I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.Sam Lowry said:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.whiterock said:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Sam Lowry said:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.whiterock said:Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!Guy Noir said:Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.whiterock said:almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.Osodecentx said:
Where I have a problem is that all of this is corroborating circumstantial tid-bits. That is insinuating that Trump may have been involved, was mad/didn't accept he lost and is an *******. I have not seen anything that ties him to the Congressional break-in or that the purpose was a Trump inspired plot to overthrow the US Government/election.A man who joined the pro-Trump mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol apologized Tuesday to officers who protected the building after telling lawmakers that he regrets being duped by the former president's lies of election fraud.Quote:Leading a crowd up to make a demonstration while making it appear to be spontaneous is not insurrection. It is good political theater that establishment Republicans think they're too good to engage in.Quote:
Trump Sought to Conceal Plans for March to Capitol, Panel Says
WASHINGTON President Donald J. Trump attempted to make the Jan. 6, 2021, march on the Capitol appear spontaneous even as he and his team intentionally assembled and galvanized a violence-prone mob to disrupt certification of his electoral defeat, the House committee investigating the attack showed on Tuesday.
"POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Jane Kremer, an organizer of the "Save America" rally on Jan. 6, wrote in a Jan. 4 textshown by the panel on Tuesday as it detailed Mr. Trump's efforts to gather his backers in Washington for a final, last-ditch effort to overturn his loss. Ms. Kremer added that Mr. Trump was "going to just call for it 'unexpectedly.'"
Mr. Trump weighed announcing the move, according to documents obtained from the National Archives, which provided the investigators with a draft tweet that said: "I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!"
The tweet was never sent. But it was the latest evidence presented by the committee of how Mr. Trump undertook a public and private effort to channel angry supporters, including right-wing extremists, toward the Capitol, where Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers were gathered to confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the president-elect.
For more than a year, Mr. Trump and his defenders have described the violence at the Capitol as a freewheeling peaceful protest gone awry. But the hearing on Tuesday laid out how the former president took a guiding role not only in bringing the mob fueled by his election lies to Washington that day, but also in the plan to direct it up to Capitol Hill, disregarding the advice of his closest aides.
"Donald Trump summoned a mob to Washington, D.C., and ultimately spurred that mob to wage a violent attack on our democracy," said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and the chairman of the committee.
In its seventh hearing to lay out its findings, the committee situated Mr. Trump at the center of the quasi-legal efforts to derail the political process and also at the heart of the unprecedented chaos at the Capitol. Over nearly three hours, it introduced evidence from rally organizers, rioters and aides inside the White House who said the former president had inspired and directed what transpired that day.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-panel-trump.html
During a hearing before the U.S. House committee that's investigating the insurrection, Stephen Ayres testified that he felt called by former President Donald Trump to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.
He described being swept up by Trump's bogus claims, and believing as he marched to the Capitol that Trump would join them there and that there was still a chance the election could be overturned.
"I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time," said Ayres, who is scheduled to be sentenced in September after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor in the riot.
Ayres described being a loyal follower of Trump on social media before Jan. 6 and said he felt he needed to heed the president's call to come to Washington, D.C., for the "Stop the Steal" rally.
"I was very upset, as were most of his supporters," Ayres said when asked about Trump's unfounded election claims. Asked by Rep. Liz Cheney if he still believes the election was stolen, Ayres said, "Not so much now."
Ayres said he wasn't planning to storm the Capitol before Trump's speech "got everybody riled up." He had believed the president would be joining them at the Capitol.
"Basically, we were just following what he said," Ayres said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/jan-6-rioter-apologizes-to-officers-after-house-testimony/2022/07/12/d2bb796e-022f-11ed-8beb-2b4e481b1500_story.html
We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.
You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.
One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.
Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.
If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.
I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.
Sort of hard to prosecute...
Bottomline, is the certification and whether to accept a slate of electors is a political policy decision, in your world anyone who disagrees and verbalizes should be prosecuted. Taken one step further, any political or policy decision not accepted is cause for prosecution.
Jan 6 was an attempt to steal the election for Trump. A losing candidate had a bogus slate of electors submitted and wants the presiding officer to throw out the the real slates and substitute the bogus slates. That was Trump's policy, steal the election. He is dishonest and devoid of ethics.
I don't want Trump prosecuted because it would be bad for the country. Prosecuting Nixon would have been bad for the country.
It is all political strategy, same as impeachment a political move not legal...There is nothing illegal in not agreeing with the election and using Constitutional options. If he did it, the SCOTUS would have ruled. He didn't, it is a non-issue. Once again, for all your bluster everything happened on time. He can say whatever he wants, fact is actions kill any prosecution which is why Garland won't charge him.
If you have proof he was behind the break in at Congress and part of it, charge him. Otherwise this is a huge slander party and a disgrace.
You have an actual conflict with reality. Every state has an alternative slate of electors in every election.Sam Lowry said:
Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.Quote:I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.Quote:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.Quote:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Quote:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.Quote:
Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.
Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.
If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.
It is not insurrection to have that alternative slate ready to go in case the original slate is rejected at the federal level. In fact, such an effort is prudent preparation and entirely respectful of process.
Your misinformation is quite harmful to the country.
There you go again with the misinformation.Sam Lowry said:This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.Quote:Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.Quote:The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.Quote:Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!Quote:Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.Quote:
almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.
We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.
You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.
One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.
Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.
That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.
You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.
neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.
Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.
Contesting certification of elections is specifically allowed by state and federal law.
Contesting certification of elections with new/novel arguments is litigation, not insurrection.
That means each of the elements I identified above is by definition not insurrection.
You are making the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform when you insisted it was an armed insurrection despite the actual list being remarkably short on weapons one would normally use to seize control of the most powerful government on earth, and quite long on things a person would carry on a hike in the woods.
https://news.yahoo.com/armed-insurrection-weapons-did-capitol-220000760.html
Seriously, Sam. Get help.
Forest Bueller_bf said:Way more than Maga wore them incorrectly. Can't tell you how many I've seen covering the mouth and not the nose and having no clue it was incorrect.Sam Lowry said:Only when you wear it "MAGA style."Harrison Bergeron said:At least covid masks have become a reliable "Here's Your Sign."Sam Lowry said:I'd say that estimate is about 50% too optimistic.Harrison Bergeron said:Added to the fact that one side is tremendously disinformed about myriad issues.Forest Bueller_bf said:That was my dad in a nutshell. More conservative than me, but YDD all the way.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Our democracy is in danger. There are many people that do not believe in our election system. Their are educated postets here that, despite the evidence and lack of evidence believe the election was rigged. Both sides think half of America is evil and way too many voters just vote the party.
Mom was somewhat less conservative than him and always voted R.
The terrified leftists took their masks off entirely in order to yell at those who they thought weren't scared and obeisant enough with mask usage.
Exactly. If Pence had rejected electors from states tainted by election fraud, Democrats would immediately have buried SCOTUS with petitions. I would have been stunned had SCOTUS agreed with the Trump campaign's argument. I suspect they would have issued a Roberts-esque ruling, avoiding commenting on the legitimacy of the electors or the proposed alternative processes and cited the dates set forth in the Constitution as determinant = "time's up, ladies & gentlemen. You do not have time to send the slates back to the states for ratification by their respective legislatures. You have to proceed with what you have in hand that's certified." or somesuch.RMF5630 said:
You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.Quote:Jan 6 wasn't a "failed policy decision". Policy is balanced budget, going to war, government healthcare, etc.Quote:So, attempted can be used for any failed policy decision?Quote:Are you familiar with the word "attempted?"Quote:
I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.
Sort of hard to prosecute...
Bottomline, is the certification and whether to accept a slate of electors is a political policy decision, in your world anyone who disagrees and verbalizes should be prosecuted. Taken one step further, any political or policy decision not accepted is cause for prosecution.
Jan 6 was an attempt to steal the election for Trump. A losing candidate had a bogus slate of electors submitted and wants the presiding officer to throw out the the real slates and substitute the bogus slates. That was Trump's policy, steal the election. He is dishonest and devoid of ethics.
I don't want Trump prosecuted because it would be bad for the country. Prosecuting Nixon would have been bad for the country.
It is all political strategy, same as impeachment a political move not legal...There is nothing illegal in not agreeing with the election and using Constitutional options. If he did it, the SCOTUS would have ruled. He didn't, it is a non-issue. Once again, for all your bluster everything happened on time. He can say whatever he wants, fact is actions kill any prosecution which is why Garland won't charge him.
If you have proof he was behind the break in at Congress and part of it, charge him. Otherwise this is a huge slander party and a disgrace.
And it would have been over. Trump would have left office on schedule just like he did after failing at a lower level.
but either way, Sam would still be here spreading blizzards of misinformation.