(01-15-2024, 03:33 PM)snarkyguy_he_him_his Wrote:

(01-15-2024, 03:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: I ascribe intent on my own.
I know that Hillary deleted emails when she knew it was illegal to do so, because she was hiding something.  And she succeeded.  We don't really know what she was hiding, even after all the WikiLeaks stuff.  Sad!  But could we prove in a court of law this was her intent? Maybe, maybe not.  Probably not worth trying.
Similarly, I know that Trump was trying to end the Constitution as we know it and make Congress bow to his mob.  We know he wanted them to do it because he asked them to do it and kept asking them to do it.  But thankfully the police and DCNG saw this effort as illegitimate and stayed loyal.  Now could I prove in a court of law this was his intent? Maybe, maybe not. People have already tried.  Colorado found he definitely meant to do it.  Others have avoided the question.  No judge has exonerated him.  And because it's the constitution itself at stake, not just some piddly little secrets of Hillary Clinton, it's definitely worth trying.

I don't know how you can believe that.

Seriously I don't get it.

He thought a few unarmed people could end the constitution of the most powerful nation on earth?

He's a billionaire. He could have bought and funded an army to storm Washington.

EDIT: it's just like the media reporting that old Jewish man that was murdered.. their headlines? Man dies.. man loses his life.. man suffers fatal head injury.

Not one mention of his murder by pro Palestine monsters. Ask yourself why? None of us are afraid of Arabs.. so why is the media afraid to report the truth?

YET they willfully and purposely continue to call January 6th an insurrection.. so you believe it

Maybe he's not that smart. That's one possibility.
But the more likely possibility is, he knows how revolutions work.
You clearly don't know, or you've conveniently forgotten, so let's review:
They usually start with protests by unarmed people who block the ordinary course of government or commerce by occupying spaces and refusing to leave.  That's step 1.
Step 2 is the police or national guard come.  The protestors try to persuade the police or national guard to join them.  
Step 3 is either the national guard declares that the protestors have won and their chosen person now controls government, and they fight on behalf of the protestors, or the national guard simply abandons post and leave the protestors with the keys to the armory.  Either way, the protestors don't win until step 3.
Showing up armed at step 1 doesn't end well because the national guard won't see you as helpless and sympathetic.  They don't want to shoot unarmed citizens.  They are much more willing to shoot armed ones.

If you need more details I'd be glad to help you review recent examples because they all fit this pattern.

---