Capitol Chaos

[bensherman]

I'm sitting very comfortably when I assess the charge and come to the same conclusion as Shapiro,as to the politics I have already mentioned that Pelosi has conned quite a few gullible people into supporting it.


I have though seen a distinct change in mood to a wish to include Trumps back catalogue to make the charge stick.

You can of course take my challenge from the transcript link and point out where and indeed how he incited the crowd to do what they did.


Should I expect to be ignored or the challenge swerved?

Should someone be found guilty of offending opposing politicians is perhaps the bigger question, to some extent it will be part of the job and one of the things Trump was very good at.

The intention to cover the whole period of incitement is not new, despite your effort to suggest otherwise.
Here is a full timeline of what he did and encouraged
https://dailysoundandfury.com/timeli...coup-attempts/

[sandGroundZero]

…you will have to learn to see the bigger picture and not take your frustrations out on those of us who see it. — post #240

© Steve Bell 1977-2021

The "bigger picture" is precisely what you, local, prefer to ignore. The obsequiousness of your posts demonstrates a profound lack of "correct and objective observations" — of President Trump, or of PM Johnson.

[local]

© Steve Bell 1977-2021

The "bigger picture" is precisely what you, local, prefer to ignore. The obsequiousness of your posts demonstrates a profound lack of "correct and objective observations" — of President Trump, or of PM Johnson.

I understand It must be frustrating to have the blindingly obvious layed out for you about someone you don't like.

The consensus now is the speech was a jigsaw piece.

What is clear is the speech doesn't pass any reasonable bar for the charge to succeed logically why not just accept it and move on?

There is still the vote you can rely on to get your pound of flesh that's propelled by Nancy and it might still succeed.

You should console yourself with the fact that Trump defeated himself in the election and now he has gone.

Let the mist clear.

[Alikado]

I understand It must be frustrating to have the blindingly obvious layed out for you about someone you don't like.

The consensus now is the speech was a jigsaw piece.

What is clear is the speech doesn't pass any reasonable bar for the charge to succeed logically why not just accept it and move on?

There is still the vote you can rely on to get your pound of flesh that's propelled by Nancy and it might still succeed.

You should console yourself with the fact that Trump defeated himself in the election and now he has gone.

Let the mist clear.

The charge is 'High Crimes and MISDEMEANOURS' when the trial starts they can throw anything at him, some will stick. It all depends on if the Republican Party want to grasp the nettle and move on from the Trump Era to 'modernise' for 2024 or languish in the mire.

[sandGroundZero]

I understand It must be frustrating to have the blindingly obvious layed out for you about someone you don't like.
The consensus now is the speech was a jigsaw piece. | What is clear is the speech doesn't pass any reasonable bar for the charge to succeed logically why not just accept it and move on?
There is still the vote you can rely on to get your pound of flesh that's propelled by Nancy and it might still succeed. | You should console yourself with the fact that Trump defeated himself in the election and now he has gone. | Let the mist clear. — post #243

Bearing in mind that it is you who have repeatedly insisted the impeachment hangs on "the speech", "logically why not just accept" [that it does not] "…and move on?"

I'm afraid it is you, local, whose vision has been clouded. You remark on Trump's odious personal qualities and occasionally cite Trump's Second Amendment stance, as if those adequately described the former President's reckless lawlessness and general unfitness for the Presidency. The realities of his profoundly damaging Presidency are, for you, trivial and inconsequential. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

[Toodles McGinty]

Bearing in mind that it is you who have repeatedly insisted the impeachment hangs on "the speech", "logically why not just accept" [that it does not] "…and move on?"

I'm afraid it is you, local, whose vision has been clouded. You remark on Trump's odious personal qualities and occasionally cite Trump's Second Amendment stance, as if those adequately described the former President's reckless lawlessness and general unfitness for the Presidency. The realities of his profoundly damaging Presidency are, for you, trivial and inconsequential. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

Now now, you know how beloved populist idiots are in this neck of the woods. Positively spaff-worthy...

Ultimately it isn't down to blame. It's down to responsibility. I don't see how anyone can say that Trump isn't responsible. Just like our own dear coiffurally challenged leader, Trump is accountable.

When taking command of any Army unit, no matter size or scope of responsibility: you own it, on day one.

No matter what your predecessor did or didn’t do...you own it. No matter what your minions do or don't do.

If you don’t like those rules, don’t take command. Because the buck always stops with you. Responsibility. Accountability.

[joan ofarc]

One of the many things that local misses in his quest to be seen as the only one who perceives the truth, is that the crowd members themselves were in no doubt as to the reason they were in that Jan 6th rally, who called them to go there and who told them what to do (ie definition of incitement).

It makes me heartsick for America to hear the Republicans going through the same tortuous rationale for why their dear leader is unblameable. They have lost sight of so many of the moral and ethical high ground they used to lay claim to. Let's face it, history has shown us that no success at the ballot box or advancement of the issues you hold dear is worth it if it means allowing an autocrat to destroy your democracy.

[bensherman]

well said

[local]

One of the many things that local misses in his quest to be seen as the only one who perceives the truth, is that the crowd members themselves were in no doubt as to the reason they were in that Jan 6th rally, who called them to go there and who told them what to do (ie definition of incitement).

It makes me heartsick for America to hear the Republicans going through the same tortuous rationale for why their dear leader is unblameable. They have lost sight of so many of the moral and ethical high ground they used to lay claim to. Let's face it, history has shown us that no success at the ballot box or advancement of the issues you hold dear is worth it if it means allowing an autocrat to destroy your democracy.

Your assertion that;

the crowd members themselves were in no doubt as to the reason they were in that Jan 6th rally, who called them to go there and who told them what to do

Is clearly illogical as the various crowd members reacted very differently or are you saying the majority "were in no doubt " and told to,
take selfies and wander around?



Most on here by default are agreeing with me?

They are now saying en masse that it was Trumps actions and words over the course of his presidency, the cumulative incitement argument.


and so it follows that the lame speech on its own didn't incite the crowd to violence as they like me can't find anything in it.

Trump's freedom to be objectionable is allowed under the constitution.



My challenge is still open.

[joan ofarc]

Your assertion that;

the crowd members themselves were in no doubt as to the reason they were in that Jan 6th rally, who called them to go there and who told them what to do

Is clearly illogical as the various crowd members reacted very differently or are you saying the majority "were in no doubt " and told to,
take selfies and wander around?



Most on here by default are agreeing with me?

They are now saying en masse that it was Trumps actions and words over the course of his presidency, the cumulative incitement argument.


and so it follows that the lame speech on its own didn't incite the crowd to violence as they like me can't find anything in it.

Trump's freedom to be objectionable is allowed under the constitution.



My challenge is still open.

Your argument is ridiculous. Incitement to sedition is not predicated on 100% of a crowd taking part.
You also wilfully misinterpret the discussion in this thread....most of the comments have pointed out that the incitement began months if not years ago and in that incendiary situation which he created Trump
whipped up the crowd and even gave them specific instructions. You can hear the crowd responding to Trump directly. Just because all the crowd did not storm the Capitol does not exonerate the now ex President.

[silver fox]

Your assertion that;

the crowd members themselves were in no doubt as to the reason they were in that Jan 6th rally, who called them to go there and who told them what to do

Is clearly illogical as the various crowd members reacted very differently or are you saying the majority "were in no doubt " and told to,
take selfies and wander around?



Most on here by default are agreeing with me?

They are now saying en masse that it was Trumps actions and words over the course of his presidency, the cumulative incitement argument.


and so it follows that the lame speech on its own didn't incite the crowd to violence as they like me can't find anything in it.

Trump's freedom to be objectionable is allowed under the constitution.



My challenge is still open.

There is no challenge and you have no argument, don't know what you've actually seen of videos from the day!!!!, there are a couple out in the public domain, taken from within the crowd, watch and listen, a large section knew exactly what the intent was and were clearly stating that intent and it wasn't just to make a lot of noise and take a few selfies.

The intent was to stop proceedings in the Capitol by force, certainly to exact revenge on those they felt to be betrayers, to remove obstacles to their attempt to overthrow the election result, I wonder just how they had become convinced that this sort of rebellion could succeed???

Couldn't possibly be a campaign of lies and exhortation from Trump and his sycophants, your obstinate clinging to that one speech being the only cause is too ludicrous for words, don't know of anyone who has claimed that is the case, that speech was the trigger to the cumulative torrent of lies and incitement.

[local]

Your argument is ridiculous. Incitement to sedition is not predicated on 100% of a crowd taking part.
You also wilfully misinterpret the discussion in this thread....most of the comments have pointed out that the incitement began months if not years ago and in that incendiary situation which he created Trump
whipped up the crowd and even gave them specific instructions. You can hear the crowd responding to Trump directly. Just because all the crowd did not storm the Capitol does not exonerate the now ex President.

But it was your ridiculous argument, not mine you wrote;


the crowd members themselves were in no doubt as to the reason they were in that Jan 6th rally, who called them to go there and who told them what to do


You now want to resile from that silly argument and say I only meant a few of them.

I just pointed out that the overwhelming majority clearly did not know "what to do"

Is your position now that Trump only incited a minority over what months years?

And what pray were the "specific instructions"

that only some got?


Talk about orange mist you're tieing yourself up in knots with it.

[sandGroundZero]

There is no challenge and you have no argument, … — post #251

Our much derided fellow forum poster, , is dug in deeply and will not be shifted

[local]

Many words have been expended, but when I ask for the evidence of his incitement ......

Although we now have cumulative incitement over some period or other to cover the paucity of evidence for the day.

[joan ofarc]

Many words have been expended, but when I ask for the evidence of his incitement ......

Although we now have cumulative incitement over some period or other to cover the paucity of evidence for the day.

There's no point left to this discussion. You are clearly seeing and hearing some alternative facts to everyone else. Two parallel universes.......