(01-07-2024, 08:57 AM)Sneakers Wrote:

(01-06-2024, 09:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: It was.  They were. Prove me wrong.


When someone bypasses a metal detector, you have no way to know if they are armed or not, until you frisk them. 

And in any case, most of the French and Russian revolutionaries were unarmed for the initial phases.

You're apparently unfamiliar with the most fundamental concept in our criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence.  The burden of proof is on the moving party.  
If you want to claim Trump's alleged tweets were a call to violence, fine, present your evidence and I'll consider it objectively.  If not, stop your whining.

Winger's point, which you're either ignoring or simply not astute enough to grasp, is that, had the intent been to overthrow the government, they would have brought and used weapons.  

P.S.  I'm sorry Santa didn't bring you a Trump doll in an orange jumpsuit for Christmas.

You're right that if this was court, the burden of proof would be on me, but it would be preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. 
But I'm not suing, this is not court, and you're not Trump. 
There is clearly a preponderance of evidence out there that Trump encouraged an insurrection in the days leading up to it, and continued to encourage it until about 4 PM that day.
He expected some or all of the police and national guard to be on his side and he expected Pence to leave so the procedure would be on hold indefinitely. When those things didn't happen he gave up.

---