|
|
Post by johneaztec on Feb 11, 2021 16:36:21 GMT -8
That isn't even in the same ballpark as assigning a Senator, who is in the jury pool and gone on record believing Trump should be convicted, to preside over the impeachment proceedings instead of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This trial is nothing but a show and you know, and I know, and everyone knows Trump will be acquitted. I just wish Trump had hired legal council who could tap dance. *shuffle*shuffle**step* "the Constitution says this isn't legal" *shuffle*shuffle**step* "here is an example of Democratic Congressman Suchandsuch imploring followers to fight" *shuffle*shuffle**step* "a Bernie Sanders supporter shot a Congressman while repeating Bernie's rhetoric" *shuffle*shuffle**step* **jazz hands** It's in the exact same ballpark, and Leahy has no more sway than anyone else in terms of a vote. What you're giving a pass to here is actual jurors meeting with the defense counsel during a trial. There isn't even an attempt to feign impartiality in this trial. It doesn't take a lot to see what's happening here. You can't be outraged at Leahy (who is the presiding party when the offender is no longer in office) and then just shrug off what the Republicans are doing, which would get them removed in a criminal proceeding. They should be barred from voting. This is not a "show" trial. Your ignorance and partisan hack feelings aside, there is a lot at stake here. We are setting a massively, massively important precedent here. What the GOP is doing will have long lasting ramifications for truth and justice. It's an embarrassment to this country. The fact that the "jurors" won't even faithfully discharge their duty and consider evidence is a travesty. This is much better than your original post. One thing nobody can say about you, is that you lack passion. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 11, 2021 17:14:52 GMT -8
It's in the exact same ballpark, and Leahy has no more sway than anyone else in terms of a vote. What you're giving a pass to here is actual jurors meeting with the defense counsel during a trial. There isn't even an attempt to feign impartiality in this trial. It doesn't take a lot to see what's happening here. You can't be outraged at Leahy (who is the presiding party when the offender is no longer in office) and then just shrug off what the Republicans are doing, which would get them removed in a criminal proceeding. They should be barred from voting. This is not a "show" trial. Your ignorance and partisan hack feelings aside, there is a lot at stake here. We are setting a massively, massively important precedent here. What the GOP is doing will have long lasting ramifications for truth and justice. It's an embarrassment to this country. The fact that the "jurors" won't even faithfully discharge their duty and consider evidence is a travesty. This is much better than your original post. One thing nobody can say about you, is that you lack passion. I try to deal in facts. Because they matter more than how I feel about a person. Some things are just not acceptable though...and I'm tired of the same nonsense over and over. The OP continually posts trolling takes in bad faith and whataboutism without addressing the severity of the problem. He'd rather spout nonsense about a lone wolf shooting Steve Scalise like it's remotely on the same scale as an attack on the Capitol Building. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 11, 2021 17:23:02 GMT -8
This is a small sample of what is trying to be swept away as no big deal, "just for show" and supposed attempts at being funny. Ashli Babbitt gets shot to death in the second video.
|
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Feb 11, 2021 20:26:19 GMT -8
This is a small sample of what is trying to be swept away as no big deal, "just for show" and supposed attempts at being funny. Ashli Babbitt gets shot to death in the second video. The trial is just for show. Remember that the person these Senators are supposed to judge is Donald Trump, and yet the prosecution staff is showing endless video of other people doing criminal acts. That would be great if it were a trial for those people, but instead the prosecution is trying to pull the biggest bait and switch in history. They are showing you highly incendiary video of people not named Trump and saying that if it makes you angry then Trump should be convicted. Conversely if you don't convict Trump then you must approve of the highly incendiary acts. The tactic is emotionally effective but completely dishonest. Show me the video of Trump specifically instructing these specific people to do these specific things. I don't care if you can pile on more rage porn to disguise the giant hole in the middle of the case where specific instructions to specific people to do specific things should be but isn't because Trump isn't guilty of the charge. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Feb 12, 2021 0:33:15 GMT -8
This is a small sample of what is trying to be swept away as no big deal, "just for show" and supposed attempts at being funny. Ashli Babbitt gets shot to death in the second video. The trial is just for show. Remember that the person these Senators are supposed to judge is Donald Trump, and yet the prosecution staff is showing endless video of other people doing criminal acts. That would be great if it were a trial for those people, but instead the prosecution is trying to pull the biggest bait and switch in history. They are showing you highly incendiary video of people not named Trump and saying that if it makes you angry then Trump should be convicted. Conversely if you don't convict Trump then you must approve of the highly incendiary acts. The tactic is emotionally effective but completely dishonest. Show me the video of Trump specifically instructing these specific people to do these specific things. I don't care if you can pile on more rage porn to disguise the giant hole in the middle of the case where specific instructions to specific people to do specific things should be but isn't because Trump isn't guilty of the charge. Why did Charles Manson spend 50 years in prison? He didn't kill anyone. He just got someone else to do it for him. Trump didn't storm the Capitol, he just told thousands of angry people (that he and his people invited to be there, weeks in advance) to go to the Capitol and, "Fight like hell," to, "Stop the steal." See my timeline I posted. This was no fluke, this was no case of unintended consequences. This was people doing exactly what Trump wanted them to do. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Feb 12, 2021 5:27:16 GMT -8
The trial is just for show. Remember that the person these Senators are supposed to judge is Donald Trump, and yet the prosecution staff is showing endless video of other people doing criminal acts. That would be great if it were a trial for those people, but instead the prosecution is trying to pull the biggest bait and switch in history. They are showing you highly incendiary video of people not named Trump and saying that if it makes you angry then Trump should be convicted. Conversely if you don't convict Trump then you must approve of the highly incendiary acts. The tactic is emotionally effective but completely dishonest. Show me the video of Trump specifically instructing these specific people to do these specific things. I don't care if you can pile on more rage porn to disguise the giant hole in the middle of the case where specific instructions to specific people to do specific things should be but isn't because Trump isn't guilty of the charge. Why did Charles Manson spend 50 years in prison? He didn't kill anyone. He just got someone else to do it for him. Trump didn't storm the Capitol, he just told thousands of angry people (that he and his people invited to be there, weeks in advance) to go to the Capitol and, "Fight like hell," to, "Stop the steal." See my timeline I posted. This was no fluke, this was no case of unintended consequences. This was people doing exactly what Trump wanted them to do. ...and he enjoyed it while they were doing it , and did nothing for 2 hours! Until those around him couldn't take it anymore. He has never said anything about the injured and dead police. 40 years ago , America woulda executed his ass. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Feb 12, 2021 8:08:36 GMT -8
The trial is just for show. Remember that the person these Senators are supposed to judge is Donald Trump, and yet the prosecution staff is showing endless video of other people doing criminal acts. That would be great if it were a trial for those people, but instead the prosecution is trying to pull the biggest bait and switch in history. They are showing you highly incendiary video of people not named Trump and saying that if it makes you angry then Trump should be convicted. Conversely if you don't convict Trump then you must approve of the highly incendiary acts. The tactic is emotionally effective but completely dishonest. Show me the video of Trump specifically instructing these specific people to do these specific things. I don't care if you can pile on more rage porn to disguise the giant hole in the middle of the case where specific instructions to specific people to do specific things should be but isn't because Trump isn't guilty of the charge. Why did Charles Manson spend 50 years in prison? He didn't kill anyone. He just got someone else to do it for him. Because Charles Mason specifically instructed specific harm to be done to specific people, and they proved that in court. Trump didn't storm the Capitol, he just told thousands of angry people (that he and his people invited to be there, weeks in advance) to go to the Capitol and, "Fight like hell," to, "Stop the steal." Trump did not storm the Capitol Building. He also didn't instruct anyone to storm the Capitol Building, and didn't instruct specific people to be harmed. Vague slogans such as "fight like hell" and "stop the steal" detached from specificity of harm is why Trump isn't guilty and why they are doing this via impeachment of a private citizen rather than in a courtroom. This isn't an exercise in justice or accountability but in propaganda. It is a show. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Feb 12, 2021 8:34:27 GMT -8
Why did Charles Manson spend 50 years in prison? He didn't kill anyone. He just got someone else to do it for him. Because Charles Mason specifically instructed specific harm to be done to specific people, and they proved that in court. Trump didn't storm the Capitol, he just told thousands of angry people (that he and his people invited to be there, weeks in advance) to go to the Capitol and, "Fight like hell," to, "Stop the steal." Trump did not storm the Capitol Building. He also didn't instruct anyone to storm the Capitol Building, and didn't instruct specific people to be harmed. Vague slogans such as "fight like hell" and "stop the steal" detached from specificity of harm is why Trump isn't guilty and why they are doing this via impeachment of a private citizen rather than in a courtroom. This isn't an exercise in justice or accountability but in propaganda. It is a show. ok Hannity. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 12, 2021 9:13:40 GMT -8
This is a small sample of what is trying to be swept away as no big deal, "just for show" and supposed attempts at being funny. Ashli Babbitt gets shot to death in the second video. The trial is just for show. Remember that the person these Senators are supposed to judge is Donald Trump, and yet the prosecution staff is showing endless video of other people doing criminal acts. That would be great if it were a trial for those people, but instead the prosecution is trying to pull the biggest bait and switch in history. They are showing you highly incendiary video of people not named Trump and saying that if it makes you angry then Trump should be convicted. Conversely if you don't convict Trump then you must approve of the highly incendiary acts. The tactic is emotionally effective but completely dishonest. Show me the video of Trump specifically instructing these specific people to do these specific things. I don't care if you can pile on more rage porn to disguise the giant hole in the middle of the case where specific instructions to specific people to do specific things should be but isn't because Trump isn't guilty of the charge. "GO TO THE CAPITOL." "THIS ELECTION WAS STOLEN." "WE WON BY A LANDSLIDE." "BIGGEST ELECTION FRAUD IN HISTORY." "WHEN YOU COUNT ALL THE LEGAL VOTES." You're using the Jim Jordan defense from this morning. "How can Trump be responsible if the pipe bombs were planted beforehand?" It's asinine and not of this planet. This was planned for weeks online and Trump's tweets spell that out. The two concepts are directly tied to each other. The rioters were there FOR Donald Trump, at his urging. "Where do they count votes at?" And "We want Trump, we want Trump." Trump flags, Trump hats, Trump shirts. He doesn't need to pull a trigger to be guilty. It's called "incitement" for a reason. This was coordinated and conspired, and we know this because of the meeting the night before at the Trump Hotel. This actually goes back to 2016 - He accused Ted Cruz of cheating more than once. It's called a pattern of behavior that speaks to a larger problem. Legal scholars universally agree that his speech isn't covered under First Amendment protections. It's "legally frivolous" in their words and speaks to the weakness of the defense strategy. One of Trump's own lawyers outright admitted Biden won the election - Yet the entire reason the riot happened is because of voter fraud myths that were perpetuated for MONTHS. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Feb 12, 2021 9:25:49 GMT -8
Why did Charles Manson spend 50 years in prison? He didn't kill anyone. He just got someone else to do it for him. Because Charles Mason specifically instructed specific harm to be done to specific people, and they proved that in court. Trump didn't storm the Capitol, he just told thousands of angry people (that he and his people invited to be there, weeks in advance) to go to the Capitol and, "Fight like hell," to, "Stop the steal." Trump did not storm the Capitol Building. He also didn't instruct anyone to storm the Capitol Building, and didn't instruct specific people to be harmed. Vague slogans such as "fight like hell" and "stop the steal" detached from specificity of harm is why Trump isn't guilty and why they are doing this via impeachment of a private citizen rather than in a courtroom. This isn't an exercise in justice or accountability but in propaganda. It is a show. Actually, telling people to GO TO THE CAPITOL and FIGHT LIKE HELL to STOP THE STEAL is instructing them to storm the Capitol building. That is the exact meaning of those words. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 12, 2021 9:32:06 GMT -8
Why did Charles Manson spend 50 years in prison? He didn't kill anyone. He just got someone else to do it for him. Because Charles Mason specifically instructed specific harm to be done to specific people, and they proved that in court. Trump didn't storm the Capitol, he just told thousands of angry people (that he and his people invited to be there, weeks in advance) to go to the Capitol and, "Fight like hell," to, "Stop the steal." Trump did not storm the Capitol Building. He also didn't instruct anyone to storm the Capitol Building, and didn't instruct specific people to be harmed. Vague slogans such as "fight like hell" and "stop the steal" detached from specificity of harm is why Trump isn't guilty and why they are doing this via impeachment of a private citizen rather than in a courtroom. This isn't an exercise in justice or accountability but in propaganda. It is a show. Nothing about this is vague. Your attempts to spin this are humorous, but not believable. It's very simple : Without Trump, there's no riot. Without Trump, there's nobody dead at the Capitol. He invited those people to show up. (Proven) He orchestrated the march to the Capitol. (Proven) He willingly and knowingly lit the fuse, knowing that voter fraud did not occur and the election was secure. (Proven)...This is a losing argument and you are on the wrong side of history. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Feb 12, 2021 9:40:17 GMT -8
The trial is just for show. Remember that the person these Senators are supposed to judge is Donald Trump, and yet the prosecution staff is showing endless video of other people doing criminal acts. That would be great if it were a trial for those people, but instead the prosecution is trying to pull the biggest bait and switch in history. They are showing you highly incendiary video of people not named Trump and saying that if it makes you angry then Trump should be convicted. Conversely if you don't convict Trump then you must approve of the highly incendiary acts. The tactic is emotionally effective but completely dishonest. Show me the video of Trump specifically instructing these specific people to do these specific things. I don't care if you can pile on more rage porn to disguise the giant hole in the middle of the case where specific instructions to specific people to do specific things should be but isn't because Trump isn't guilty of the charge. "GO TO THE CAPITOL." "THIS ELECTION WAS STOLEN." "WE WON BY A LANDSLIDE." "BIGGEST ELECTION FRAUD IN HISTORY." "WHEN YOU COUNT ALL THE LEGAL VOTES." You're using the Jim Jordan defense from this morning. I am using the legal requirements in United States Law as presented by one of the most prominent free speech attorneys from the ACLU. www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/freedom-of-speech-what-constitutes-incitementLegal scholars universally agree that his speech isn't covered under First Amendment protections. Legal scholars don't universally agree on what day of the week it is. What you've written here is a bald face lie that even morons should be able to see through. For example, Alan Dershowitz is a legal scholar (Harvard Law School 1964-2013). One of Trump's own lawyers outright admitted Biden won the election - Yet the entire reason the riot happened is because of voter fraud myths that were perpetuated for MONTHS. Trump isn't on trial for raising the temperature of the rhetoric. Trump is on trial for incitement, and that has a legal standard. You are allowed to lie. You are allowed to use incendiary language. You are not allowed to issue specific instructions to specific people to do harm to specific people imminently because that is incitement. If you are lacking any of those things then it isn't incitement. What Trump did was not incitement. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 12, 2021 9:46:04 GMT -8
"GO TO THE CAPITOL." "THIS ELECTION WAS STOLEN." "WE WON BY A LANDSLIDE." "BIGGEST ELECTION FRAUD IN HISTORY." "WHEN YOU COUNT ALL THE LEGAL VOTES." You're using the Jim Jordan defense from this morning. I am using the legal requirements in United States Law as presented by one of the most prominent free speech attorneys from the ACLU. www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/freedom-of-speech-what-constitutes-incitementLegal scholars universally agree that his speech isn't covered under First Amendment protections. Legal scholars don't universally agree on what day of the week it is. What you've written here is a bald face lie that even morons should be able to see through. For example, Alan Dershowitz is a legal scholar (Harvard Law School 1964-2013). One of Trump's own lawyers outright admitted Biden won the election - Yet the entire reason the riot happened is because of voter fraud myths that were perpetuated for MONTHS. Trump isn't on trial for raising the temperature of the rhetoric. Trump is on trial for incitement, and that has a legal standard. You are allowed to lie. You are allowed to use incendiary language. You are not allowed to issue specific instructions to specific people to do harm to specific people imminently because that is incitement. If you are lacking any of those things then it isn't incitement. What Trump did was not incitement. "Go to the Capitol" is a specific instruction. Again, we're yawning here. You're on an island. Don't worry, your hero will face plenty of criminal charges in multiple states as well. Everyone will get their fair share of the pie. I'd post the legal definition of insurrection but you'd probably cry about that, too. Here's 144 lawyers from across the spectrum agreeing to exactly what I said - "Legally frivolous" www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/us/trump-defense-first-amendment.html#click=https://t.co/Dqs9JZ9h6ZWhile that may not be "universal", it sure indicates a pretty strong consensus. I'm glad you brought up Dershowitz - That just illustrates how pathetic this argument is. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Feb 12, 2021 10:01:52 GMT -8
Because Charles Mason specifically instructed specific harm to be done to specific people, and they proved that in court. Trump did not storm the Capitol Building. He also didn't instruct anyone to storm the Capitol Building, and didn't instruct specific people to be harmed. Vague slogans such as "fight like hell" and "stop the steal" detached from specificity of harm is why Trump isn't guilty and why they are doing this via impeachment of a private citizen rather than in a courtroom. This isn't an exercise in justice or accountability but in propaganda. It is a show. Actually, telling people to GO TO THE CAPITOL and FIGHT LIKE HELL to STOP THE STEAL is instructing them to storm the Capitol building. That is the exact meaning of those words. Even if you want to interpret those statements that way, you are still missing the specific identifiable people to be targeted for harm. This is a chance to learn something new today. In US Law there is a standard that marks the line between Protected Speech and Incitement to Violence. It is called the Brandenburg Test. Trump doesn't get even close to crossing the line. In 1964, KKK leader Clarence Brandenburg led a rally where he called for a march on the Capitol and for revenge to be taken against those holding the white man down. In that speech he specifically mentioned the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. He was arrested for Incitement and the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court where in a 9-0 decision they said Brandenburg's speech was not Incitement and was Protected by the First Amendment. If your sources telling you Trump is guilty of Incitement do not mention the Brandenburg Test, which is the measure that determines if someone is guilty of Incitement or not, then you are just reading or watching propaganda to reaffirm your wrongheaded opinion. Do yourself a favor and look up the Brandenburg Test or Brandenburg v. Ohio. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Feb 12, 2021 10:14:48 GMT -8
Here's 144 lawyers from across the spectrum agreeing to exactly what I said 144? That's nice. There are 1,338,678 lawyers in the US and you are able to find roughly 1 in every 10,000 lawyers to agree with you. To put that another way, there are 1,440 minutes in a day. A broken clock is in agreement with reality in 2 of the 1,440 minutes. You've found agreement with 1 per 9,296 lawyers. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Feb 12, 2021 10:14:48 GMT -8
Actually, telling people to GO TO THE CAPITOL and FIGHT LIKE HELL to STOP THE STEAL is instructing them to storm the Capitol building. That is the exact meaning of those words. Even if you want to interpret those statements that way, you are still missing the specific identifiable people to be targeted for harm. This is a chance to learn something new today. In US Law there is a standard that marks the line between Protected Speech and Incitement to Violence. It is called the Brandenburg Test. Trump doesn't get even close to crossing the line. In 1964, KKK leader Clarence Brandenburg led a rally where he called for a march on the Capitol and for revenge to be taken against those holding the white man down. In that speech he specifically mentioned the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. He was arrested for Incitement and the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court where in a 9-0 decision they said Brandenburg's speech was not Incitement and was Protected by the First Amendment. If your sources telling you Trump is guilty of Incitement do not mention the Brandenburg Test, which is the measure that determines if someone is guilty of Incitement or not, then you are just reading or watching propaganda to reaffirm your wrongheaded opinion. Do yourself a favor and look up the Brandenburg Test or Brandenburg v. Ohio. I would question your interpretation of that. And no matter what, Trump told them to go down to the Capitol to Fight Like Hell and Stop The Steal. He told them to do that. It's painfully clear. He is responsible for what happened. Not to mention the fact that plans for such an action were put in place weeks and months earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Feb 12, 2021 10:26:37 GMT -8
Trump told them to go down to the Capitol to Fight Like Hell and Stop The Steal. He told them to do that. It's painfully clear. You are lying and you know it. Trump did not "them to go down to the Capitol to Fight Like Hell". You created that fake quote out of 2 other quotes, and you did it because you can see the problem with your whole construct. Trump directed people "over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard", and in a different part of the speech was a quote to "fight like hell". You deleted the the "peacefully and patriotically" and rammed the quotes together to create your fake instruction. That sir, is dishonest. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Feb 12, 2021 10:32:33 GMT -8
The trial is just for show. Remember that the person these Senators are supposed to judge is Donald Trump, and yet the prosecution staff is showing endless video of other people doing criminal acts. That would be great if it were a trial for those people, but instead the prosecution is trying to pull the biggest bait and switch in history. They are showing you highly incendiary video of people not named Trump and saying that if it makes you angry then Trump should be convicted. Conversely if you don't convict Trump then you must approve of the highly incendiary acts. The tactic is emotionally effective but completely dishonest. Show me the video of Trump specifically instructing these specific people to do these specific things. I don't care if you can pile on more rage porn to disguise the giant hole in the middle of the case where specific instructions to specific people to do specific things should be but isn't because Trump isn't guilty of the charge. Why did Charles Manson spend 50 years in prison? He didn't kill anyone. He just got someone else to do it for him. Trump didn't storm the Capitol, he just told thousands of angry people (that he and his people invited to be there, weeks in advance) to go to the Capitol and, "Fight like hell," to, "Stop the steal." See my timeline I posted. This was no fluke, this was no case of unintended consequences. This was people doing exactly what Trump wanted them to do. Do you actually think Trump wanted them to storm the Capitol and kidnap and kill people? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 12, 2021 10:34:58 GMT -8
Trump told them to go down to the Capitol to Fight Like Hell and Stop The Steal. He told them to do that. It's painfully clear. You are lying and you know it. Trump did not "them to go down to the Capitol to Fight Like Hell". You created that fake quote out of 2 other quotes, and you did it because you can see the problem with your whole construct. Trump directed people "over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard", and in a different part of the speech was a quote to "fight like hell". You deleted the the "peacefully and patriotically" and rammed the quotes together to create your fake instruction. That sir, is dishonest. Coming from you, it sounds like a Disney tagline. Anyone watching this farce today should be outraged at an absurdly laugbable defense strategy. Cringeworthy. Because the outcome was determined beforehand, thanks to the cowardice and betrayal of an entire party, we are witnessing the worst underreaction in history to an act of insurrection in which a police officer was murdered. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 12, 2021 10:45:07 GMT -8
Why did Charles Manson spend 50 years in prison? He didn't kill anyone. He just got someone else to do it for him. Trump didn't storm the Capitol, he just told thousands of angry people (that he and his people invited to be there, weeks in advance) to go to the Capitol and, "Fight like hell," to, "Stop the steal." See my timeline I posted. This was no fluke, this was no case of unintended consequences. This was people doing exactly what Trump wanted them to do. Do you actually think Trump wanted them to storm the Capitol and kidnap and kill people? Mike Pence never evacuated the building. He was 50-75 feet away, sheltering with his entire family. He likely would have been killed...as stated by several of the rioters in those videos I posted. "BRING OUT PENCE, HANG MIKE PENCE." The former president's string of tweets attacking Pence for "not doing his job" occurred AFTER Trump learned of Pence's movements from off the floor of the Senate. So yeah, I think he knew what he was doing. This came out during a call to Tommy Tuberville, who Trump wanted to delay further certification. Judging by how much social media activity was occurring during the riot, this isn't a far-fetched idea....and it occurred during the commission of obstruction of the vote to certify electors. |
|
