Do you also believe that the Earth is flat and the moon landing was fake ?
A few thoughts about January 6, 2021
- Thread starter ObsidianJones
- Start date
Do you think courts need the power to over-ride a parent's judgement and have a physically healthy child sterilized and mutilated if the court, in its judgement, thinks it appropriate?
He said peaceful one time in an hour long speech that was otherwise telling them that they needed to fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country anymore, and in the context of him filing vexatious litigation about election fraud, repackaging the same false and irrelevant claims, performatively waving props that they declared were "binders of affidavits" (and just how much that was a prop is summed up by the fact that those affidavits were things like reviews of the customer service at the nearby Checkers Restaurant) to create an illusion of strength that consistently fell apart in front of the judges who were quick to point out that the affidavits were a mix of irrelevant, speculative, hearsay (sometimes even hearsay of hearsay), factually wrong, contradictory, and rooted in an erroneous understanding of even the basics of the tabulation procedures.Well, he did say go peacefully protest so they impeached him for "inciting" insurrection.
Trump impeached after Capitol riot in historic second charge
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump was impeached by the U.S. House for a historic second time Wednesday, charged with “incitement of insurrection” over the deadly mob siege of the Capitol in a swift and stunning collapse of his final days in office.apnews.com
Time and again, the cases were dismissed for lack of merit, with the judges explaining in detail how Trump et al had presented nothing substantive and didn't even meet the threshold of probable cause, much less make their case, detailing how the positions put forth by Trump et al were - and I quote - "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence", and in many cases wholly predicated on misunderstanding and misrepresenting standard procedure as if they were proof of malfeasance entirely due to the claimant's own failures to acquaint themselves with the process, resulting in the "plaintiff's interpretation of events [being] incorrect and not credible". ...Only for Trump et al to jump onto conservative outlets and lie to people like you that the courts had dismissed the case without so much as looking at the evidence - much less weighing its merits - and therefore were clearly corrupt and could not be trusted to do the "right thing" of ruling in his favor.
To borrow from an old post:
If it had just been a case of a few words in his speech in isolation, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We're having this discussion because the speech did not happen in isolation.
It happened in the context of Trump throwing everything he could at the wall to try to overturn the results of the election so he could remain in power, such as telling State Legislators to overturn the results (even after being told that they had no legal means to do so) and declaring them persona non-grata when they told him he was asking for something illegal and they wouldn't break the law for him, at which point he'd once again go to the air to lie to his base again, claiming that they did have the power but refused to use it because they were RINOS who were letting the Democrats practically get away with murder. He heard sixty times over from the courts that his cases didn't have merit and hadn't provided any evidence of his claims, and yet still turned around and lied to his base again that the evidence was overwhelmingly in his favor but the judges were obviously corrupt and refused to hear it, further riling them up with the narrative that the election was clearly stolen and the official channels refused to do anything about it. It happened in the context of Trump et al arranging for fake electors to go to Congress to fraudulently say the vote was for Trump instead of Biden, disenfranchising those states for Trump's personal political benefit.
It happened in the context of Trump demanding that the Justice Department falsely announce that they'd found proof of pervasive election fraud so that he could use that announcement as a pretext to demand that States annul their official vote count and unilaterally declare Trump the 'actual' winner. It happened in the context of Team Trump demanding that Pence sow confusion on the floor of Congress and "creatively" count the votes to provide a smokescreen under which he could then illegally (as Pence himself had repeatedly made clear and the Eastman memo makes clear that Team Trump was well aware of) dismiss key states that voted for Biden out of hand, thereby ending the count while Trump had more votes, and use that to illegally declare Trump the winner and then have the government treat Trump's illicit 'confirmation' as a fait accompli. It happened in the context of Trump et al calling Congressional Representatives to demand that they sow whatever chaos they could to delay the certification to buy time for his team to pressure the States into the aforementioned overturning of their one certifications and election results. The Eastman memos in particular have been rebuked as - in no uncertain terms - an instruction manual for a coup d'etat, and you might notice that its proposals bear more than a passing resemblance to what Trump et al were attempting before, during, and after the storming of Capitol Hill.
That and more is the context in which Trump made his speech: A speech designed to incite its attendants into action, and telling them that they had the power to prevent Biden from taking office and that if they didn't use it they wouldn't have a country anymore. A speech during which the attendants were carrying weapons - which Trump allegedly dismissed as a non-concern on the stated grounds that they weren't there to hurt him, to the point that he allegedly demanded the magnetometers used to find and confiscate weapons from the attendees be removed; the same attendees who were chanting "Take the Capitol", "Storm the Capitol", and "Invade the Capitol" and building gallows while declaring that Pence and other members of Congress deserved to be hung as traitors.
And the immediate aftermath of this speech was that its attendants violently assaulted the Capitol in his name, disrupted an official Congressional proceeding - in accordance with Trump's aforementioned goals - and caused Congress to be evacuated for its safety. In the immediate aftermath, these actions were described even by the likes of Mitch McConnell and other congressional Republicans as a failed insurrection, and was later described by the FBI as an act of domestic terrorism.
During the storming of the Capitol, Trump took advantage of the chaos to call various Representatives to tell them to make more objections to the counting of the electoral votes, to further stall the certification of the election with the ultimate goal of overturning it, with Giuliani doing much the same after the mob dispersed. To quote: "I know they're reconvening at 8 tonight, but it ... the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow – ideally until the end of tomorrow", still trying to use the attack to further their aim of breaking the law and violating the Constitution to keep Trump in power.
That's the cliffnotes version of the context that leads to the description of this as an insurrection or failed coup, which is a lot stronger of a case than you pretend by insisting at looking at nothing but the speech and then claiming that Trump saying the word peaceful once in his speech constitutes an ironclad defense to the idea that he engaged in insurrection through a months-long campaign to subvert the election results through extralegal methods that culminated in his followers assaulting the Capitol with the aim of illegally keeping him in power.
That'd be United States of America v. Donald Trump (Docket 1:23-cr-00257-TSC), which indicted him last year, only for it to be immediately stalled by Trump et al's appeals of presidential immunity. The courts ruled against his claim and the trial was originally scheduled to start in March, but then in February the Supreme Court announced that it would hear arguments about presidential immunity in April (Trump v. United States, Docket 23-939) and did not issue its ruling until July 1 (which infamously included new extremely broad rules dictating what evidence is permissible, such as any conversation with the Vice President that can be spun as "discussing official duties"), with Supreme Court rules mandating a further moratorium on cases that might be affected by their ruling until August 1 to allow for appeals. Judge Chutkan only got the case back on August 2 - less than 2 weeks ago - and is currently waiting on a joint status report from the involved parties before resuming.
So no, it's not that "they didn't". It's that the case has been tied up in red tape that has prevented it from moving forward, explicitly because of the novel circumstances stemming from Trump being a former president.
Last edited:
Should be easy to indict Trump for Insurrection, for which there are enumerated laws.
The whole issue does make me wonder about the 1st Amendment.
It's long been decided that even though the 1st only states speech cannot be infringed but is silent about what government can do to you after speech is conducted, punishing people after speech is to hang a kick me sign on the amendment.
Yet, say one states, "I want Barzini to sleep with the fishes" and Barzini ends up dead, is it then OK to arrest and investigate the person saying what on its face is within safe bounds of protected speech?
Or someone on Steam starts a thread "Sweet Baby Inc Detected" and Sweet Baby files for an injunction stating the purpose of the thread is to incite violence against them?
Interesting. Mentions inciting an insurrection but not a charge for insurrection itself.
The whole issue does make me wonder about the 1st Amendment.
It's long been decided that even though the 1st only states speech cannot be infringed but is silent about what government can do to you after speech is conducted, punishing people after speech is to hang a kick me sign on the amendment.
Yet, say one states, "I want Barzini to sleep with the fishes" and Barzini ends up dead, is it then OK to arrest and investigate the person saying what on its face is within safe bounds of protected speech?
Or someone on Steam starts a thread "Sweet Baby Inc Detected" and Sweet Baby files for an injunction stating the purpose of the thread is to incite violence against them?
No, you're full of it. Everything you just said is wrong and based off of just a bunch of conspiracy theorists whacking each other off.But did he lose the popular vote? In a nation in which elections can be stolen with out leaving a trace that it happened, how would you know?
Five days after Biden said this to backers pleading for another chance to show he might actually be able to win 2024 (or get polling close enough to steal the election) the Secret Service turned into Tommy the pinball wizard. The assassination attempt failed and Biden was dropped.
Yes, Biden Said, 'It's Time to Put Trump in a Bull's-Eye.' Here's the Context
A gunman shot and injured former U.S. President Donald Trump at a campaign rally in July 2024.www.snopes.com
A case can be built on circumstantial evidence alone and can be more convincing than direct evidence (i.e. a witness, who could simply be incorrect).
But about 1/6 in particular? I think the left wanted a false flag and instigated the worst of it and exaggerated much. Be interesting if, when they finally debate, Kamala brings it up or not.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,958
- 3,832
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Hillary won the popular vote by 5 million or so votes, popular vote doesnt' matter, electoral count does. You could lose the popular by like 30 million and still easily win by electoral count.
This was specifically to donors, no one outside that room knew about that bulleye quote till it was dredged up after the assassination attempt because there was no reason too. So it would have been impossible for the assassin to know about it.
That would almost be a good point, if it wasn't for the fact that trump could have stopped it at any time. He could have changed the rhetoric, he could have tweeted at them sooner then 3 hours after the violence started, he could have called the national guard, he could have even held his rally a different day. He had control of this, unless you think that the left are the ultimate puppet masters of... pretty much everything. Which you might cause right now it seems like republicans are pretty brain dead.
I think it was Razorfist that doubts she even did that. She had an army of lawyers to do some challenges but didn't. He posited that maybe they'd find how many votes were stolen and she'd even lose that popular vote. But agreed, electoral count is what matters.
The circumstantial trail suggests Biden or someone in the Biden Admin put out the demand for a hit and FBI took it from there (had previously gotten the assassin on board, got rid of what social media this 20 year old had, assured him that he would be unmolested as he, a kid that had taken marksmanship training, took the shot that would make him infamous.)
I've seen a number of security experts in agreement: negligence and incompetence alone cannot explain what happened. So what did happen?
You have Pelosi on video blaming herself as she could have done much of that and more. A reporter interviewed him (and he told her she was a nasty person: classic Trump) and he did have a response to these types of observations. Will review and post assuming it hasn't been memory holed (CNN Town Hall).
EDIT:
@10 min.
Last edited:
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,958
- 3,832
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Except that isn't really true is it.
Fact-checking a claim Pelosi ‘takes responsibility’ for not calling National Guard on Jan. 6, 2021 - Poynter
No member of Congress has the authority to activate the DC National Guard. Only the president, defense secretary and US Army secretary do.
www.poynter.org
Of course, we have to deal with Devos again.Both can go fuck themselves.
DeVos Will Work For Man Behind ‘Unconscionable’ Jan 6 Attack Again, So Long As He Promises To Gut Public Ed
Famously, Trump's Education Secretary Betsy DeVos resigned from her job in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Like some in the Trump administration at the time, DeVos — whose tenure was…talkingpointsmemo.com
Trump compares his Jan. 6 crowd to the audience for MLK's 'I Have a Dream' speech
At a news conference Thursday, Trump said he thought he actually had "more people" than the civil rights leader did for his iconic speech.www.nbcnews.com
March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (U.S. National Park Service)
t was the largest gathering for civil rights of its time. An estimated 250,000 people attended the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on August 28, 1963, arriving in Washington, D.C. by planes, trains, cars, and buses from all over the country.www.nps.gov
I'm sure she has and knows she has the clout to call someone and have them call someone.Except that isn't really true is it.
Fact-checking a claim Pelosi ‘takes responsibility’ for not calling National Guard on Jan. 6, 2021 - Poynter
No member of Congress has the authority to activate the DC National Guard. Only the president, defense secretary and US Army secretary do.
Can you imagine the cries of "FACISM" if Trump had simply called up the guard and ordered them to go?
Does she have direct authority to simply call for more capital police and barricades typically used when they know something contentious is ongoing? If not, likely same difference: she has the clout to get it done and didn't. Reviewing...
EDIT: Probably this position:
Hey, he did win one of his cases now. Admittedly it was about poll watchers being made to stand too far away and had no impact on any results, but that's beside the point! He's got to take his wins where he can get them.
You can investigate, but unless there's more behind it than having said that then there's no crime. Barring a RICO case, but then we're talking specifically organized crime and there's more to it than someone just saying the line and the thing happening to happen.
Not *all* of it. Biden did say the line five days before the shooting, Secret Service was shockingly bad at their job, Trump was not killed despite that, and Biden did drop out after the RNC. The rest of it is bullshit, but there are a few things he said that at least resembled being correct. Every good conspiracy theory needs at least a few nuggets of observable truth to act as anchor points.
Like how jet fuel can't melt steel beams, you just have to ignore that jet fuel is hot enough to weaken them and those beams are holing up a massive amount of weight so it doesn't take much weakening to be catastrophic...
Why? Her national popular vote margin was smaller than her margin in CA. One of my predictions for this election is that no matter who wins, Harris will win the popular vote because I expect she'll have a very strong lead in CA - she could literally lose the other 49 states by any believable margin and still win the popular vote because of CA. If Hillary's popular vote win was because of hijinks, you'd think her team would have been smart enough not to concentrate all those hijinks in CA.
We're talking about the same FBI that got massively infiltrated by a UFO cult because a science fiction writer was worried that there might be government records that made them look bad. Never underestimate the incompetence of a large organization, especially as regards security. Also why the FBI, they're basically just federal police? Wouldn't the CIA make more sense, you know the people we usually use for assassinations or the like?
Nice and all, but this is why I don't bother with conspiracy bullshit in the first place. There are a "few good ones", but just mainly the one, covered with a bunch of brain melting bad ones I don't have the time nor patience. You have fun with that as you wish.
One guess I'd make is that they have the intelligence apparatus to have found a shooter to recruit. Maybe the intelligence to have his social media deleted.
Don't recall who said it but it was to the effect that you do not make the top 10 wanted list unless they already know where to pick you up and then do so and take credit for their amazing skills. But they have their areas of competence. They lied to a FISA court that allowed them to spy on Trump et. al. Deep Throat was FBI that took down Nixon due to how much they hated him. Nixon was guilty of stuff but I don't doubt LBJ did too. Just, the deep state takes out the ones they hate.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,958
- 3,832
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
You mean trump?
Well, that was a good reason not to have them there initially, but once the insurrection starts, you call them the fuck in. This wasn't just a riot, this was specifically to fuck with a cornerstone of out democracy. The peaceful transfer of power. Besides, trump didn't seem to give a shit when he used them to clear out that church for his upside down bible photo op.
Pelosi didn't call all shots for Capitol security officials
As the Democrat-led investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol devolves even further into an exercise of politi
www.politifact.com
Correct, but I think she could have and says she blames herself but I think she is admitting this for the wrong reason. The real reason is, they wanted their false flag.Pelosi didn't call all shots for Capitol security officials
As the Democrat-led investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol devolves even further into an exercise of politi
ITMT: Trump did not use troops to stay in power no matter what. And we've been thru 3.5 years of hell with Biden destroying the nation ever since.
If Trump wins and lives to see the next election and a Democrat wins? I'm sure he'll step down again.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,958
- 3,832
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Does it bother you that you need endless conspiracies to justify anyone being against trump? I mean we know that almost everything he says is a lie. Fox news knew all the stolen election stuff was fake, its why they settled that case with Dominion, there are messages from even Rupert Murdock about how fake all those claims were. We know that trump was told by almost everyone in his inner circle those claims were fake so he found people who wouldn't tell him that.
Can't tell if serious or not since its been fucken awesome with Biden, hes been an excellent president.
Do love how the insurrectionists respected the red velvet ropes!
Yes, everyone was telling Trump the election was stolen. What they mean is, this is how the game is played. Whether it is JFK in 1960, or Bush in 2000, you're just supposed to go along. Trump wouldn't.
Before Covid (one reason to be against Trump: he went along with the tyrants that told us they just needed 2 weeks to flatten the curve and more) I was getting so much better off financially. Everything was just getting super affordable. The strategic petroleum reserve had been topped off. Sane judges were being placed on the USSC bench. Now we have one that can't tell you what a woman is, my kids can't afford houses, and a decent GPU costs $500. I am poorer. My wages, relative to inflation are down. And now the Democrats don't even hold legit primaries and are foisting someone on us no one voted for while lying about Biden's mental capacity and WW3 could be breaking out all over any moment now. And so much more. It's why Biden's negatives were even worse than Trumps when Trump had the MSM waging war against him while circling wagons for Biden. You don't have to tell us how great things are. If they really were we would already know.
That's the rub though, isn't it? All of this is just guesswork, speculation and assumption, based on the allegations of a well-known liar and egotist. You've not actually got anything substantial or solid you can point to.
Last edited: