Yes, I am quite familiar with the actual phrase. I watched the address in real time and plainly heard him say peacefully in the quote you cited. Clearly enough to immediately note its omission when referencing his rally speech.
Re: fight like hell. A very commonly used term in political speeches by all sides all of the time. To single it out here, imo, is disingenuous and misleading when looking at how commonly used the phrase is.
Someone commits a single instance - who cares? But he has not committed a single instance. Instead:
Yes, I am quite familiar with the actual phrase. I watched the address in real time and plainly heard him say peacefully in the quote you cited. Clearly enough to immediately note its omission when referencing his rally speech.
Re: fight like hell. A very commonly used term in political speeches by all sides all of the time. To single it out here, imo, is disingenuous and misleading when looking at how commonly used the phrase is.
So if he didn't mean it, why did he say nothing for over 3 hours?
You left out the part where Trump said "PEACEFULLY" walk to the Capitol, just like everyone else has who is trying to take him down. Why is it that you all deliberately refuse to acknowledge that ?
Democrats have pointed to one phrase in particular as they argue that Trump incited those present to march down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol. "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," he said.His defense lawyers, however, point to a different passage, in which Trump said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." They argue that his words were not a call for actual violence and lawlessness.
In his entire 70-minute address he used the word "peacefully" once, and not as a directive.
Yes, I am quite familiar with the actual phrase. I watched the address in real time and plainly heard him say peacefully in the quote you cited. Clearly enough to immediately note its omission when referencing his rally speech.
Re: fight like hell. A very commonly used term in political speeches by all sides all of the time. To single it out here, imo, is disingenuous and misleading when looking at how commonly used the phrase is.
You left out the part where Trump said "PEACEFULLY" walk to the Capitol, just like everyone else has who is trying to take him down.
Why is it that you all deliberately refuse to acknowledge that ?
Democrats have pointed to one phrase in particular as they argue that Trump incited those present to march down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol. "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," he said.
His defense lawyers, however, point to a different passage, in which Trump said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." They argue that his words were not a call for actual violence and lawlessness.
In his entire 70-minute address he used the word "peacefully" once, and not as a directive.
In his speech before the riot, Trump praised supporters for showing up to “save our democracy.” He told supporters “we’re going to walk down to the Capitol ... You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”
You left out the part where Trump said "PEACEFULLY" walk to the Capitol, just like everyone else has who is trying to take him down.
Why is it that you all deliberately refuse to acknowledge that ?
The defendant knowingly incited, engaged in, or gave aid and comfort to a rebellion or insurrection.
Starting in December, Trump repeatedly encouraged his supporters on Twitter to show up for a âbig protestâ in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, the day that Congress accepted the Electoral College votes.
At a Georgia rally Jan. 4, Trump told supporters âweâre going to take what they did to us on Nov. 3. Weâre going to take it back.â
In his speech before the riot, Trump praised supporters for showing up to âsave our democracy.â He told supporters âweâre going to walk down to the Capitol ... You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.â
kurtster wrote:
The rebellion or insurrection was against the authority of the United States or its laws.
I know you aren't serious but as noted elsewhere - for any onlookers, so no one thinks we are ceding the argument to your nonsense:
The defendant's actions were willful and intentional.
? Is your argument here that he simply didn't know what he was doing? You might actually get a little traction on that until we apply some basic common sense and realize that the president had at least 4 years to familiarize himself with the process. His actions from the preceding November make this pretty clearly intentional.
The defendant knowingly incited, engaged in, or gave aid and comfort to a rebellion or insurrection. The rebellion or insurrection was against the authority of the United States or its laws. The defendant's actions were willful and intentional.
And exactly how many have been charged with insurrection or rebellion for that matter ?
And how many have been actually convicted ?
An accusation alone does not make someone guilty, last time I heard anyway.
Taking things a step further regarding accusations equals conviction ...
This being a music site overall, how many have accused Rock and Roll as being the Devil's Music ?
Probably as a proportion of the population at the time, the same as who are calling January 6 an insurrection.
Is R n R the Devil's Music ? Must be with all the accusers saying so, right ?
It was a riot in support of thwarting an official action by Congress. That action was certifying the presidential election.
Merriam-Webster says that an insurrection is "the act or an instance of revolting especially violently against civil or political authority or against an established government. also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt."
January 6 meets that test.
The storming of the Capitol was only part of the insurrection. That was the stinkbomb intended to create chaos and encourage Trump supporters to claim the normal election procedure was hopelessly corrupted and confused.
As Ken Chesebro and others have testified, the plan was to disrupt the formal Electoral Vote count to provide sufficient time for more applications to courts (with the help of complicit DOJ attorneys) to have the election results disputed. The courts in various swing states would throw the election decision to state legislatures who would appoint Trump's selected slate of fake electors who'd vote for Trump. I believe GOP members of Congress were supposed to contribute to the confusion by constantly challenging the Electoral vote counts—see the Green Bay Sweep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(politics)
Forgive me if I've muddled some of the details. It's such an idiotic idea that typing it makes me wonder whether I've embellished its ramshackle stupidity.
January 6 was only a riot and was never an insurrection.
It was a riot in support of thwarting an official action by Congress. That action was certifying the presidential election.
Merriam-Webster says that an insurrection is "the act or an instance of revolting especially violently against civil or political authority or against an established government. also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt."
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
May 3, 2024 - 3:31pm
kurtster wrote:
I have been waiting for this video to pop up on youtube by itself, but for some reason it has not.
Another Levin video. This one having to do with the question of POTUS immunity and also the actual precedent for alternate sets of electoral college electors that dates back to the election of 1876. This is just the same thing as the events that led up to January 6.
It stands up for me enough for me to hang my hat on it. January 6 was only a riot and was never an insurrection.
I have been waiting for this video to pop up on youtube by itself, but for some reason it has not.
Another Levin video. This one having to do with the question of POTUS immunity and also the actual precedent for alternate sets of electoral college electors that dates back to the election of 1876. This is just the same thing as the events that led up to January 6.
It stands up for me enough for me to hang my hat on it. January 6 was only a riot and was never an insurrection.
Levin is very good at weaving elements of truth into something follwers will believe as factual. Take 10% of 10 stories, and you end up with 100% truth.
I'm a bit simpler. I don't need obscure 1860' and 1870's events... I'll listen to those who know more than me, and if their analysis supports what I saw... I go with it... hat and all.
I have been waiting for this video to pop up on youtube by itself, but for some reason it has not.
Another Levin video. This one having to do with the question of POTUS immunity and also the actual precedent for alternate sets of electoral college electors that dates back to the election of 1876. This is just the same thing as the events that led up to January 6.
It stands up for me enough for me to hang my hat on it. January 6 was only a riot and was never an insurrection.
The push against Trump is twisting our legal system to extremes
or maybe... Trump is twisting our legal system to extremes?
I have been waiting for this video to pop up on youtube by itself, but for some reason it has not.
Another Levin video. This one having to do with the question of POTUS immunity and also the actual precedent for alternate sets of electoral college electors that dates back to the election of 1876. This is just the same thing as the events that led up to January 6.
It stands up for me enough for me to hang my hat on it. January 6 was only a riot and was never an insurrection.
âWould it help if we described the hypothetical to the Court as "the president could order Seal Team 6 to assassinate members of the Supreme Court so that he could fill their seats with new appointments"?
(And don't say "they'd impeach him" when he could also order hits on members of Congress.)â
Do you remember when Obama took this guy out ? I said the same thing then that I did now. I said he should have been impeached for that at the very least. You can go back and search if you like. Obama assumed that he was immune. He deliberately murdered this guy without a trial or conviction. A US citizen. Shows you how little democrats value the Constitution, citizenship and why they want open borders. They do not care about this country. They only care about holding onto their power.
I admire your support for anchor-babies, but according to the link you posted, he was not the target. I don't know one way or the other if he was, but it is highly likely imo that he was aligned with his father in al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula. If you remember, post-911, Bush instituted a policy of taking the fight against terrorism overseas and that has continued under all administrations from both parties. The war on terror doesn't fit into the old declare war on another country system. I don't know the details of how the US court system works, but yeah, I think it would be wise to have more checks on US actions against citizens. It's a pretty big reach to turn that into an accusation that Obama, personally is responsible for a decision to assassinate an American citizen abroad, when there is no evidence that the young man was even the target.
But of course the continuation of Bush's war on terror under Obama is somehow related to your false accusation that Democrats want open borders in your weird mind. Right.
Your thoughts regarding Trump are ridiculous. You and most others here (and have actually said so) really believe that if Trump is re elected he would not leave office after his term is over. Who is telling you this stuff ? I mean that you actually believe that tells me everything I need to know about you and matters regarding Trump. The only people I know who believe that suffer from TDS.
Where did you read anything about not leaving office the second time? He tried not to leave the first...sure, but I never said that. That's obviously a talking point on your MAGA sites.
When in doubt... call on TDS. It excuses any and all sins of your leader.
The push against Trump is twisting our legal system to extremes
or maybe... Trump is twisting our legal system to extremes? kurtster wrote:
I will venture to say that no matter what decisions are made, we are all going to lose.
We have all already lost having made him POTUS once. Now we're discussing destroying everything by letting him rape the place again for his ego and wealth.
Your thoughts regarding Trump are ridiculous. You and most others here (and have actually said so) really believe that if Trump is re elected he would not leave office after his term is over. Who is telling you this stuff ? I mean that you actually believe that tells me everything I need to know about you and matters regarding Trump. The only people I know who believe that suffer from TDS.
The push against Trump is twisting our legal system to extremes
or maybe... Trump is twisting our legal system to extremes?
kurtster wrote:
I will venture to say that no matter what decisions are made, we are all going to lose.
We have all already lost having made him POTUS once. Now we're discussing destroying everything by letting him rape the place again for his ego and wealth.
From your article ... The case was dismissed only because the plaintiff lacked standing. In other words, it was never decided. A federal district court dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiff, Al-Aulaqi’s father, lacked standing to bring suit, and that the request for before-the-fact judicial review raised “political questions” that the court could not decide.
Yes, I read that part also. Obama had plenty of enemies in the Republican party; they could have brought impeachment proceedings against him but they didn't - even after he left office. Similar proceedings could've been brought against LBJ, Nixon, and G.W. Bush for wartime deceptions. Does that translate to 'immunity"? It's hard to say - depends who you ask, I guess..
Yeah. From what I've been getting from careful listening is that the SCOTUS has been avoiding the question of POTUS immunity for 30 or 40 years or more. Too big of a can of worms to open. Which I would have to agree. The push against Trump is twisting our legal system to extremes and the areas that have yet to be decided are now being forced into decisions. How this ends, I do not know. I will venture to say that no matter what decisions are made, we are all going to lose.
The case was dismissed only because the plaintiff lacked standing. In other words, it was never decided.
A federal district court dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiff, Al-Aulaqiâs father, lacked standing to bring suit, and that the request for before-the-fact judicial review raised âpolitical questionsâ that the court could not decide.
Yes, I read that part also. Obama had plenty of enemies in the Republican party; they could have brought impeachment proceedings against him but they didn't - even after he left office. Similar proceedings could've been brought against LBJ, Nixon, and G.W. Bush for wartime deceptions. Does that translate to 'immunity"? It's hard to say - depends who you ask, I guess..
