Suppose you're right.  (You're not) But suppose you are.  The Constitution that we both claim to love basically requires consent and cooperation at multiple levels in multiple ways.  If every judge, even Republican judges, really wanted Trump gone that bad, what would that say about Trump's job performance?

When has the democrats recently ever followed The Constitution? They can't even follow their own laws or regulations!! They constantly break laws and violations that put people in harms way. How many murderers, psychopaths, rapists and pedophiles get to go free in our judicial system?!?

Liberal.. Judges..

But God forbid a couple of kids ride across a [BLEEP] pride flag painting. Then it's a manhunt.

And you have the audacity..

Following the constitution is the default state.  Not following the constitution results in impeachment and lost court cases.  We should start from the presumption that the constitution is being followed, and then you should give an example of them not following it.  Maybe that example woul be "just as bad" as spreading lies about the result of the election? Probably it won't.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

When has the democrats recently ever followed The Constitution? They can't even follow their own laws or regulations!! They constantly break laws and violations that put people in harms way. How many murderers, psychopaths, rapists and pedophiles get to go free in our judicial system?!?

Liberal.. Judges..

But God forbid a couple of kids ride across a [BLEEP] pride flag painting. Then it's a manhunt.

And you have the audacity..

Following the constitution is the default state.  Not following the constitution results in impeachment and lost court cases.  We should start from the presumption that the constitution is being followed, and then you should give an example of them not following it.  Maybe that example woul be "just as bad" as spreading lies about the result of the election? Probably it won't.

Fabricating false information to jail or penalize a political opponent is NOT following The Constitution.

They didn't even allow Trump a jury in the Civil NY case..

They're trying to stop him and they can't. The only way they can stop what coming is by assassination. And I wouldn't put it past those pieces of trash out there to try it.

---

Biden's DOJ even raided Mar a Lago, probably just to bring Biden back a pair of Trump's jockeys to sniff.. And why exactly did they raid Malania's clothes drawer? Or Baron's room? Did Biden want a new set of legos? Or maybe a pair of the kids underpants to sniff too.

---

Following the constitution is the default state.  Not following the constitution results in impeachment and lost court cases.  We should start from the presumption that the constitution is being followed, and then you should give an example of them not following it.  Maybe that example woul be "just as bad" as spreading lies about the result of the election? Probably it won't.

Fabricating false information to jail or penalize a political opponent is NOT following The Constitution.

They didn't even allow Trump a jury in the Civil NY case..

They're trying to stop him and they can't. The only way they can stop what coming is by assassination. And I wouldn't put it past those pieces of trash out there to try it.

If you're just talking about what the state of NY has done since he lost the election, I agree, it ain't good.  It's also not as bad as what he did, and he did what he did first.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

He gave a speech at a rally, after which he went back to the White House.  Nothing in the speech exceeded his 1st Amendment rights.  

After his departure, many of those present marched to the Capital and the rally evolved into a protest.  A handful of protesters tried to force their way inside and began struggling with Capitol Police.  Many others who probably wouldn't have initiated such an action on their own, spontaneously joined in and the event turned violent.  

After the perimeter was breeched and protesters entered the building, some Police gave up and allowed many more to walk in unimpeded.  Most of those who entered were completely peaceful and just wandered around taking pictures.

Meanwhile, back at the White House, Trump did little to quell the crowd.  It was poor leadership, but neither criminal, nor proof of any conspiracy.  You're desperate to believe him guilty of insurrection, but supporting facts simply don't exist.

Let me ask you a simple question.  What was the point of that rally?  What was supposed to happen as a result of that rally?  "Stop the steal."  The election was over.  There's no legal way to overturn it at that point.  So why have a rally at all?

I have no idea what the point was, and I doubt even Trump had any specific reason.  In his mind the election was "stolen", probably in part because his ego couldn't acknowledge a loss.  Maybe he was anticipating a 2024 campaign and wanted to maintain his image as the presumptive nominee.  Are there any politicians who don't love getting in front of a crowd whenever the opportunity presents itself?

If you want to assume the actual end result was the direct intent of the organizer, what are we to assume about the BLM rallies in Minneapolis and Fergusen? 

The rally itself is not a smoking gun.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

He gave a speech at a rally, after which he went back to the White House.  Nothing in the speech exceeded his 1st Amendment rights.  

After his departure, many of those present marched to the Capital and the rally evolved into a protest.  A handful of protesters tried to force their way inside and began struggling with Capitol Police.  Many others who probably wouldn't have initiated such an action on their own, spontaneously joined in and the event turned violent.  

After the perimeter was breeched and protesters entered the building, some Police gave up and allowed many more to walk in unimpeded.  Most of those who entered were completely peaceful and just wandered around taking pictures.

Meanwhile, back at the White House, Trump did little to quell the crowd.  It was poor leadership, but neither criminal, nor proof of any conspiracy.  You're desperate to believe him guilty of insurrection, but supporting facts simply don't exist.

That right there is disqualifying to me.
"Protect and defend the constitution" is a vague term most days.  That day, it wasn't.  Even if I agree with you that it was nothing more than poor leadership, it was poor leadership in a very critical moment, right?

Disqualifying for your vote is fine, but not for the right to seek and hold office.

It wasn't leadership, it was a complete absence thereof.  He sat in the White House (presumably watching the event on TV, or at least briefed on it) like a petulant child, however Capital security was not his responsibility.  Pelosi's failure before and during the event was abysmal. 

The "moment" to which you refer is far more critical in your mind, than it was in reality.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Let me ask you a simple question.  What was the point of that rally?  What was supposed to happen as a result of that rally?  "Stop the steal."  The election was over.  There's no legal way to overturn it at that point.  So why have a rally at all?

I have no idea what the point was, and I doubt even Trump had any specific reason.  In his mind the election was "stolen", probably in part because his ego couldn't acknowledge a loss.  Maybe he was anticipating a 2024 campaign and wanted to maintain his image as the presumptive nominee.  Are there any politicians who don't love getting in front of a crowd whenever the opportunity presents itself?

If you want to assume the actual end result was the direct intent of the organizer, what are we to assume about the BLM rallies in Minneapolis and Fergusen? 

The rally itself is not a smoking gun.

I'll play that game.
Name a person who instigated/started any dangerous riot in Minneapolis or Ferguson.
Name the government building and government function their unlawful riot disrupted.

---

That right there is disqualifying to me.
"Protect and defend the constitution" is a vague term most days.  That day, it wasn't.  Even if I agree with you that it was nothing more than poor leadership, it was poor leadership in a very critical moment, right?

Disqualifying for your vote is fine, but not for the right to seek and hold office.

It wasn't leadership, it was a complete absence thereof.  He sat in the White House (presumably watching the event on TV, or at least briefed on it) like a petulant child, however Capital security was not his responsibility.  Pelosi's failure before and during the event was abysmal. 

The "moment" to which you refer is far more critical in your mind, than it was in reality.

Nah dude.  

• "The President is commander in chief of the army and Navy if the United States and of the militia of the several states, when called into actual service of the United States".
  

I don't see anything in there about Congress being in charge of its own security.
Also, even if they were, it was Trump's mob.  They went out when he sent them and didn't go home until he told them to. Even if I forgive him for sending the mob, even if I give him the benefit of the doubt "Trump didn't realize they would get violent," I don't see a way to excuse how he waited three hours before telling them to go home.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I have no idea what the point was, and I doubt even Trump had any specific reason.  In his mind the election was "stolen", probably in part because his ego couldn't acknowledge a loss.  Maybe he was anticipating a 2024 campaign and wanted to maintain his image as the presumptive nominee.  Are there any politicians who don't love getting in front of a crowd whenever the opportunity presents itself?

If you want to assume the actual end result was the direct intent of the organizer, what are we to assume about the BLM rallies in Minneapolis and Fergusen? 

The rally itself is not a smoking gun.

I'll play that game.
Name a person who instigated/started any dangerous riot in Minneapolis or Ferguson.
Name the government building and government function their unlawful riot disrupted.

---

Disqualifying for your vote is fine, but not for the right to seek and hold office.

It wasn't leadership, it was a complete absence thereof.  He sat in the White House (presumably watching the event on TV, or at least briefed on it) like a petulant child, however Capital security was not his responsibility.  Pelosi's failure before and during the event was abysmal. 

The "moment" to which you refer is far more critical in your mind, than it was in reality.

Nah dude.  

• "The President is commander in chief of the army and Navy if the United States and of the militia of the several states, when called into actual service of the United States".
  

I don't see anything in there about Congress being in charge of its own security.
Also, even if they were, it was Trump's mob.  They went out when he sent them and didn't go home until he told them to. Even if I forgive him for sending the mob, even if I give him the benefit of the doubt "Trump didn't realize they would get violent," I don't see a way to excuse how he waited three hours before telling them to go home.

You're not playing "that" game, you're playing "your" game.

---

I'll play that game.
Name a person who instigated/started any dangerous riot in Minneapolis or Ferguson.
Name the government building and government function their unlawful riot disrupted.

---

Nah dude.  

• "The President is commander in chief of the army and Navy if the United States and of the militia of the several states, when called into actual service of the United States".
  

I don't see anything in there about Congress being in charge of its own security.
Also, even if they were, it was Trump's mob.  They went out when he sent them and didn't go home until he told them to. Even if I forgive him for sending the mob, even if I give him the benefit of the doubt "Trump didn't realize they would get violent," I don't see a way to excuse how he waited three hours before telling them to go home.

You're not playing "that" game, you're playing "your" game.

The game Sneakers was trying to start is to draw some sort of equivalence between Minneapolis or Ferguson and January 6.

I'll let him do that.  I'll play along.  He just has to tell me which individual(s) instigated those riots and if they were punished. Then we can see how similar the two things are.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There's no game. Ferguson was relatively civil from a political perspective. Floyd, however, was not. Maxine Waters was much more explicit than Trump and what was she charged with?

“We're looking for a guilty verdict. We're looking for a guilty verdict. And if we don't, we cannot go away. We've got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business. What else do we have to do but fight for our justice? But I am very hopeful, and I hope that we're going to get a verdict that says guilty, guilty, guilty. And if we don't, we cannot go away.”

Pelosi, the same lady who took responsibility (lol) for not preparing the Capitol properly, also used the same inflammatory language as Trump. At least she can be reasonably be seen as connecting her incendiary speech to legislation,  although, I'm sure you wouldn't see that if the right news agency told you otherwise.

“We will fight this fight because we must fight it, and we will fight it because we must win it. In order to do that, we must have the transformative change that this legislation represents. We will fight like hell for the justice and the dignity that George Floyd and countless others deserve.

In honor of George Floyd and all those who have suffered police brutality, we will not stop until we enact real, lasting, meaningful change that brings justice to our communities. This is about respect, it’s about dignity, it’s about equality, and it’s about time.

We must make sure that this moment of national reckoning becomes a movement of national action... We cannot settle for anything less than transformative structural change. That is why we will fight like hell to ensure that the Senate takes up this bill and sends it to the President’s desk."

---

Fight like hell is a common political term. Trump used it along with the qualifier "peacefully and patriotically." Yes, he was trying to affect the democratic process. Pelosi was CLEARLY doing the same thing. There were active riots breaking out and she used inflammatory language to impact a democratic process. She also called for peace. I would be with you if you were sensible enough to standards civility and justice, but you don't. You go where the hot wind takes you. Keep playing your "games." That's all they are. There is nothing of substance there.

---

I'll let you play that game too.
Trump's word choices maybe were similar to those of Pelosi.
However,
He controlled the armed forces at the time, and Pelosi did not,
More importantly, though,
You're actually drawing an equivalence between Pelosi's desire to be part of some sort of grand racial reconciliation, and Trump's desire to simply stay in office.
Oops.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You're the only one playing a game. It's called "Move the Goalposts."

---

You're the only one playing a game. It's called "Move the Goalposts."

Mike's used to playing with himself lol

---

You're the only one playing a game. It's called "Move the Goalposts."

The goal is to expose arguments that excuse January 6 as nonsense.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You're admitting to starting with the conclusion, which should explain to you why you have to move the goal posts. Just admit you accept a different standard for Trump than you do anyone else.

---

You're admitting to starting with the conclusion, which should explain to you why you have to move the goal posts. Just admit you accept a different standard for Trump than you do anyone else.

It's not really Trump. It's the severity of what he did.

A constitution (any constitution) is most essentially the document or unwritten rules that say (1) who is in charge and (2) who will be in charge after that.

I judge people by how they uphold the constitution.
The Democrats do a poor job with certain aspects of our constitution, and Republicans have had their weak points as well.  They all do things that our founders didn't want done, but are perfectly normal in other countries.

But Trump failed in the one aspect that our constitution shares with every other constitution.  He failed to pass power predictably.  All along I suspected Trump would do exactly this.  You could say some of my posts from 2015 to 2020 were hyperbole or even delusion. Until January 6, that is, because January 6 validated all of it. 

Any excuse you could give, any comparison you could make, will miss the mark because of how January 6 strikes at the essential nature of what a constitution is.  It's more comparable to a coup, not a riot.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

In your head.

---

In your head.

Are you saying that he's a zombie?

---

In your head.

Are you saying that he's a zombie?

No, a Cranberry.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato