(06-11-2024, 04:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2024, 04:16 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Don't you think the burden of proof to support a charge of insurrection should be a little higher than what a handful of people thought his tweets meant?
Sure. In a court of law, certainly. In a random internet forum, no, I am not a prosecutor and you are not a juror.
By the way Trump has been indicted for his conduct on and around January 6. Four charges. Conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy against the right to have one's vote counted.
So far his only defense has been that his behavior was all "official acts as President" and therefore he is immune from prosecution. His lawyers have not mounted any other defense. We are waiting on a Supreme Court decision.
They also had to amend the law and clarify what the role of the VP is during certification after the fact. Why on earth would they need to do that?
You know why, but you won't admit it. Trump's plan for that day was a bad idea, but it was not a crime. He rallied a crowd to peacefully protest at the capitol in an effort to visibly show Pence the level of support he had and to sway him to do something that was, as written at the time, a gray area but also clearly political suicide for Pence. I don't blame him for not going along even though I'm highly suspicious of the election day result. And even if fraudulent votes weren't significant enough to move the needle, the Dems and their leftist judges still changed election law in swing states in the 11th hour while early voting was going on to extend the deadline for mail in votes. That's complete [BLEEP] and probably did impact the results in swing states.
Intent matters though. I don't believe Trump's intent was for violence of any kind and nothing he said given the full context in the lead up or on that day supports the idea that he intended to incite violence. If intent doesn't matter, you're essentially outlawing anyone from rallying a crowd with the intent to peacefully protest and that is very un-American. Prosecute the bad actors. If there is proof of a conspiracy and that directives were given to bad actors in the crowd from Trump or his camp, then investigate and throw the book at him. Otherwise, drop the left-wing, faux outrage nonsense.
(06-11-2024, 06:58 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2024, 04:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Sure. In a court of law, certainly. In a random internet forum, no, I am not a prosecutor and you are not a juror.
By the way Trump has been indicted for his conduct on and around January 6. Four charges. Conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy against the right to have one's vote counted.
So far his only defense has been that his behavior was all "official acts as President" and therefore he is immune from prosecution. His lawyers have not mounted any other defense. We are waiting on a Supreme Court decision.
They also had to amend the law and clarify what the role of the VP is during certification after the fact. Why on earth would they need to do that?
You know why, but you won't admit it. Trump's plan for that day was a bad idea, but it was not a crime. He rallied a crowd to peacefully protest at the capitol in an effort to visibly show Pence the level of support he had and to sway him to do something that was, as written at the time, a gray area but also clearly political suicide for Pence. I don't blame him for not going along even though I'm highly suspicious of the election day result. And even if fraudulent votes weren't significant enough to move the needle, the Dems and their leftist judges still changed election law in swing states in the 11th hour while early voting was going on to extend the deadline for mail in votes. That's complete [BLEEP] and probably did impact the results in swing states.
Intent matters though. I don't believe Trump's intent was for violence of any kind and nothing he said given the full context in the lead up or on that day supports the idea that he intended to incite violence. If intent doesn't matter, you're essentially outlawing anyone from rallying a crowd with the intent to peacefully protest and that is very un-American. Prosecute the bad actors. If there is proof of a conspiracy and that directives were given to bad actors in the crowd from Trump or his camp, then investigate and throw the book at him. Otherwise, drop the left-wing, faux outrage nonsense.
I think you should read the charges.
They don't say what you think they say.
Yes there is a theory that the Vice President can interrupt proceedings while he "presides" over the electoral vote count. But even if he did so, that is resolved by a vote of the members present and the votes weren't there. They ended up allowing multiple interruptions and votes but the outcome didn't change.
The text of Title 3 of the US Code as it stood in 2020 was that these votes of Congress were supposed to be about the authenticity of the electoral votes received from the states. And it says that there should be an alternative set of electoral votes from the state for Congress to consider. They're not looking for a guy to say "I think this state failed to follow their own law when they sent these electoral votes." They're looking for a second bag of different votes allegedly sent by the same state. If they don't have a second leather bag of votes like that, all they can do is reject the votes they have. They can only take away, they can't add. And Trump knew that! That's why Trump arranged for additional, fraudulent bags of electoral votes to be sent. That's what he's charged with. It is a crime. States determine how to cast their electoral votes and there is no role for the sitting President in that process.
(06-11-2024, 12:10 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2024, 09:53 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Looters should be shot on sight or tried and hung. It's nothing but piracy and we should treat them like pirates.
Shot on sight? So you believe lynching is ok?
Sure, bastards in the act of breaking in my window, they get shot. Defending my property should permit lethal force, for the right to private property is the foundation of our entire order of society. If they get away but it goes to court then it should be a capital offense.
(06-12-2024, 09:13 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2024, 12:10 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Shot on sight? So you believe lynching is ok?
Sure, bastards in the act of breaking in my window, they get shot. Defending my property should permit lethal force, for the right to private property is the foundation of our entire order of society. If they get away but it goes to court then it should be a capital offense.
Shooting is too kind. Body parts need to be severed
(06-12-2024, 09:20 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-12-2024, 09:13 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Sure, bastards in the act of breaking in my window, they get shot. Defending my property should permit lethal force, for the right to private property is the foundation of our entire order of society. If they get away but it goes to court then it should be a capital offense.
Shooting is too kind. Body parts need to be severed
I'm too old for that if it's me personally, that's why Sam Colt made us all equal. I'm fine with just hanging them. No need to torture them, that takes away the moral high ground of the law.
(06-12-2024, 09:23 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (06-12-2024, 09:20 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Shooting is too kind. Body parts need to be severed
I'm too old for that if it's me personally, that's why Sam Colt made us all equal. I'm fine with just hanging them. No need to torture them, that takes away the moral high ground of the law.
It just ensures they don't steal again without the death part.
(06-12-2024, 09:23 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-12-2024, 09:23 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I'm too old for that if it's me personally, that's why Sam Colt made us all equal. I'm fine with just hanging them. No need to torture them, that takes away the moral high ground of the law.
It just ensures they don't steal again without the death part.
Why do we need to exclude the death part?
https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/statu...qh4tQ&s=19
Patrick Bet-David Exposing That Jill Biden Used To Babysit Beau Biden & Hunter Biden When She Was Just 15 Years Old
Joe Biden and Jill Biden then dated in her mid 20s. This clearly means he found her sexually attractive at 15 YEARS OLD
“That's Jill Biden. Oh. She used to babysit Beau and Hunter. At 15 woah. Did you guys know this or no? (see video for photos)
I did not know that.
Woah. That's a little weird to me. Oh. And then later on, because, you know, people came back and they said, well, the rumors are not true that they dated while she was a babysitter. They dated when she was in her mid twenties.
Bro, that's not the point. You were attracted to her. Guess what? At 15 years old I thought she was….
I don't know, man. That's a little weird.
So wait. Are you mean to tell me the same president whose daughter wrote in her diary, pbd, that her father would take showers with her at inappropriate ages, the same guy that on camera when he was sworn in as vice president has been sniffing kids, grabbing them, touching them on camera and some of those girls came out and said that they felt extremely uncomfortable.”
![[Image: SYUx0.jpg]](https://s12.gifyu.com/images/SYUx0.jpg)