@metal-brain saidTrump did not tell people to protest peacefully. He summoned them to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power at the Capitol, and he knew that that is what they would do when he addressed them on Jan. 6.
That had nothing to do with Trump. If I told a crowd to peacefully protest super PACs and someone beat someone up is it my fault?
He knew quite well what he was doing when he said he hoped Pence would "do the right thing" -- he meant that Pence should break the law and de-certify the result -- and egged the mob on to finish the job in case Pence did not do Trump's bidding. Trump knew quite well what he was doing when he summoned the mob to come to DC on Jan. 6 ("It will be wild" ) and had good reason to think some people in the mob would be armed.
Trump effectively shouted "fire" in a crowded theater when he knew quite well there was no fraud (on a scale which would have tipped the result), thereby triggering a stampede to the Capitol. This is not protected under the First Amendment; this constitutes incitement to riot. Since the goal of the riot was to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the rightful winner of the election, this constitutes incitement to sedition.
He knew what he was doing in the run-up to Jan. 6 and that it constituted an attempt to overturn a legitimate election. He lost and he knew it, people told him so, including his own AG: he just did not want to accept it. So he tried to engineer a coup d'etat, illegally clinging to an office from which he had been ejected.
Now all we need are depositions from some people close to Trump at the time, under penalty of perjury, and he'll be nailed to his own cross.
@moonbus saidI have my doubts that case could ever be made. There would have to be a showing that Trump plotted with the actual rioters to disrupt the certification or at least had his surrogates do so with his knowledge.
Trump did not tell people to protest peacefully. He summoned them to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power at the Capitol, and he knew that that is what they would do when he addressed them on Jan. 6.
He knew quite well what he was doing when he said he hoped Pence would "do the right thing" -- he meant that Pence should break the law and de-certify the result -- and egge ...[text shortened]... e people close to Trump at the time, under penalty of perjury, and he'll be nailed to his own cross.
Moral responsibility is one thing; criminal responsibility another.
@moonbus saidWRONG!
Trump did not tell people to protest peacefully. He summoned them to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power at the Capitol, and he knew that that is what they would do when he addressed them on Jan. 6.
He knew quite well what he was doing when he said he hoped Pence would "do the right thing" -- he meant that Pence should break the law and de-certify the result -- and egge ...[text shortened]... e people close to Trump at the time, under penalty of perjury, and he'll be nailed to his own cross.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-peacefully-and-patriotically/
5 edits
@no1marauder saidInciting a crowd to riot does not suppose that the one who incites them knows specifically who is in the crowd. He did summon people to DC -- this has been established -- it hardly matters whether Trump knew their names personally. Law officers noted an increase in social-network and messaging activity just prior to Jan. 6 and this probably weighed heavily on the jury's decision to convict.
I have my doubts that case could ever be made. There would have to be a showing that Trump plotted with the actual rioters to disrupt the certification or at least had his surrogates do so with his knowledge.
Moral responsibility is one thing; criminal responsibility another.
Roger Stone is recorded on video prior to the election on Nov 2, outlining the major points of the plot. Jan. 6 was only one act in a long play, which began before election day and continued after the election was certified on Jan. 6 (viz the string of spurious court cases -- all outlined by Stone in advance, BTW).
People close to the president knew he knew the election was lost because they told him so. Once his lawyers, Giuliani, Powell, and Eastman realize they could go to jail for lying about what they knew Trump knew, they'll sing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/02/us/politics/john-eastman-trump-memo.html
Sorry this is behind a paywall.
I'm encouraged by the convictions of the Oath Takers on the sedition charge. Now the DoJ just has to connect the dots up the chain of command. "Stand by," their Commander in Chief said. It leads me to believe that a broader case will be made than merely what transpired on Jan. 6.
@Metal-Brain
And OF COURSE he would say that so he could later claim plausible deniability.
He didn't mean a WORD of that sentence though and you know it but continue in your pathetic way to defend X45, BTW, your boss Putin just fell down a flight of steps because of his combined cancer and Parkinson's. He doesn't have much longer to live, and when he dies, will you be the first to make a Putin Shrine?
@moonbus saidThe parts of the plot that involved dubious legal theories like the Vice President could reject State's electors cannot support a seditious conspiracy conviction, even if they were done in bad faith.
Roger Stone is recorded on video prior to the election on Nov 2, outlining the major points of the plot. Jan. 6 was only one act in a long play, which began before election day and continued after the election was certified on Jan. 6 (viz the string of spurious court cases -- all outlined by Stone in advance, BTW).
People close to the president knew he knew the election w ...[text shortened]... said. It leads me to believe that a broader case will be made than merely what transpired on Jan. 6.
@no1marauder saidTaken one piece at a time, each step along the way was hedged by Trump in language which could be interpreted as plausibly deniable. He's not stupid. But the broad picture, calling Raffensberger and telling him to "find" votes, having fake electors submit false votes to the EC, getting his own people to 'inspect' voting machines after voting had closed and letting them run around unsupervised inside counting facilities, etc. etc. -- the picture which emerges is of a very broad plot to overturn an election on multiple fronts.
The parts of the plot that involved dubious legal theories like the Vice President could reject State's electors cannot support a seditious conspiracy conviction, even if they were done in bad faith.
1 edit
@no1marauder
BTW, did you see the report that Trump said he would pardon the convicted Oath Takers if he is elected in 2024?
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/02/politics/donald-trump-january-6-rioters-support/index.html
And it get s weirder: Trump is now calling for putting the Constitution in abeyance to re-instate him;
https://us.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constitution-truth-social/index.html
@sonhouse saidAre you a full time mind reader? What am I thinking right now?
@Metal-Brain
And OF COURSE he would say that so he could later claim plausible deniability.
He didn't mean a WORD of that sentence though and you know it but continue in your pathetic way to defend X45, BTW, your boss Putin just fell down a flight of steps because of his combined cancer and Parkinson's. He doesn't have much longer to live, and when he dies, will you be the first to make a Putin Shrine?
@no1marauder saidI'm guessing that someone within the Oath Takers provided the content of text messages and that that was sufficient to prove intent. Now, if someone would provide the content of text messages and phone conversations to/from Trump (Secret Service phones, for example), then intent might be proven there, too.
The parts of the plot that involved dubious legal theories like the Vice President could reject State's electors cannot support a seditious conspiracy conviction, even if they were done in bad faith.
@moonbus saidThere was far more evidence than text messages and they indicated use of force was expected. See the the link to the Indictment I already provided.
I'm guessing that someone within the Oath Takers provided the content of text messages and that that was sufficient to prove intent. Now, if someone would provide the content of text messages and phone conversations to/from Trump (Secret Service phones, for example), then intent might be proven there, too.
I don't find it likely that similar evidence will be found against Trump.
@no1marauder saidThat doesn’t mean there wasn’t evidence. Didn’t you find it suspicious that the Secret Service said the text messages from Jan. 6 had been deleted?
There was far more evidence than text messages and they indicated use of force was expected. See the the link to the Indictment I already provided.
I don't find it likely that similar evidence will be found against Trump.
@sonhouse saidWe need more introspect from Sonhouse
@Metal-Brain
And OF COURSE he would say that so he could later claim plausible deniability.
He didn't mean a WORD of that sentence though and you know it but continue in your pathetic way to defend X45, BTW, your boss Putin just fell down a flight of steps because of his combined cancer and Parkinson's. He doesn't have much longer to live, and when he dies, will you be the first to make a Putin Shrine?
@metal-brain saidSHouse has the word 'because' in every post. He ALWAYS tells us why people do this or that.
Are you a full time mind reader? What am I thinking right now?
3 edits
@no1marauder saidThis all sounds fine to me, but (without sinking too deep into the legal weeds) How many more years have to run by before we see our monarch Donald J Trump face justice for trying to overturn the 2020 election, stealing classified documents, or tax evasion, and what kind of punishment should he face? We both know, if some common working-class grunt did just 10% of what Trump has gotten away with for the last 10 years, they would have been sitting in prison a long time ago (and it wouldn't be in a minimum-security country club!)
Some of the Maga lads did wind up getting convicted of seditious conspiracy for their actions on January 6th, 2021:
" Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes was convicted Tuesday of seditious conspiracy for a violent plot to overturn President Joe Biden’s election, handing the Justice Department a major victory in its massive prosecution of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. ...[text shortened]... k on the Capitol though MB and Wajoma among others have insisted there's no basis for such a charge.
You're the lawyer - give it to us in layman's terms.