Trump's Post Election Fallout: Legal & Obstruction actions

[BigRedBuster]

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

So the hearings will show Trump telling people to go Into the Capitol? 

You’re proving you haven’t paid attention or, ignoring it because it makes republicans look bad. 

[Archy1221]

35 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You’re proving you haven’t paid attention or, ignoring it because it makes republicans look bad. 

I honestly haven’t watched the hearings.  Most of my nights are spent at kid sporting events or work events so I missed the prime time ones and I’m not in front of a tv during the day.  
 

Though, did it show Trump or his associates to go into the Capitol?   Because if so, I would think that constitutes incitement based on how events unfolded.  If they didn’t I don’t think it would.  

[commando]

15 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I honestly haven’t watched the hearings.  Most of my nights are spent at kid sporting events or work events so I missed the prime time ones and I’m not in front of a tv during the day.  
 

Though, did it show Trump or his associates to go into the Capitol?   Because if so, I would think that constitutes incitement based on how events unfolded.  If they didn’t I don’t think it would.  

that is a mighty fine line you are walking there.   almost invisible.     but...assuming trump isn't liable for the riots.....do you still think he and his cronies shouldn't face consequences for their attempt to throw out the electoral votes?

[Archy1221]

16 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Could she be any more blatantly corrupt? Where are the GOPers who ranted about "activist judges" right now? 

 

 

We're now past mid-terms.

 

I believe the Special master had  until Nov30 originally to complete his work and have the documents logged now the judge pushed that back to Dec 16.  Both dates are well past the midterms.
  

[BigRedBuster]

13 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I honestly haven’t watched the hearings.

I can tell.  Maybe you should.

[BigRedBuster]

13 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Though, did it show Trump or his associates to go into the Capitol?   Because if so, I would think that constitutes incitement based on how events unfolded.  If they didn’t I don’t think it would.  

You're definition of incitement is interesting.

[commando]

43 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You're definition of incitement is interesting.

it is splitting a very, very, very thin hair.  but heaven forbid if a democrat would try to split such a fine hair in their defense.

[BigRedBuster]

19 minutes ago, commando said:

it is splitting a very, very, very thin hair.  but heaven forbid if a democrat would try to split such a fine hair in their defense.

But, it's not splitting any hairs.  Literally, the definition of "incite" is:  encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behavior).

 

That doesn't have anything to do with if they, themselves, actually entered the capital.  What we are seeing is someone trying to get around the mounds of evidence that implicates the people who someone supports.

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

You're definition of incitement is interesting.

We were originally talking about Ray Epps and why I thought he needed to held accountable for telling people to go INTO the Capital which I take as inciting a riot.  Some other poster then said something to effect of “so you think Trump and his allies”. Should be held to account.  
 

If they did the same as Epps then yes. 
 

 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

But, it's not splitting any hairs.  Literally, the definition of "incite" is:  encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behavior).

 

That doesn't have anything to do with if they, themselves, actually entered the capital. 

Which is kinda why if you would read the words I actually write you would see that I clearly say if “Trump and his allies” encourages people to “go into the Capitol” I would say they were inciting a riot.  I don’t say that those Trump allies had to actually go into the Capitol themselves.  just like I say Ray Epps clearly was doing, encouraging.  Same standard.    Yet you are obfuscating what I say for some reason.  

[commando]

Just now, Archy1221 said:

Which is kinda why if you would read the words I actually write you would see that I clearly say if “Trump and his allies” encourages people to “go into the Capitol” I would say they were inciting a riot.  I don’t say that those Trump allies had to actually go into the Capitol themselves.  just like I say Ray Epps clearly was doing, encouraging.  Same standard.    Yet you are obfuscating what I say for some reason.  

fwiw...trump and his allies did encourage the riots.   

[BigRedBuster]

33 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

We were originally talking about Ray Epps and why I thought he needed to held accountable for telling people to go INTO the Capital which I take as inciting a riot.  Some other poster then said something to effect of “so you think Trump and his allies”. Should be held to account.  
 

If they did the same as Epps then yes. 
 

 

The original discussion was about the J6 hearings and you all of a sudden started talking about epps while that's not what the j6 hearings is about. People like Epps would be handled through the DOJ or local law enforcement.  But, you, for some reason, want to talk about him.  When some tried getting the conversation back on the people who the J6 hearings are about, you said....trying to claim it's nothing but political theater....even though you haven't watched them.

 

16 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I honestly haven’t watched the hearings.  Most of my nights are spent at kid sporting events or work events so I missed the prime time ones and I’m not in front of a tv during the day.  
 

Though, did it show Trump or his associates to go into the Capitol?   Because if so, I would think that constitutes incitement based on how events unfolded.  If they didn’t I don’t think it would.  

 

For some odd reason, you don't think anyone could have incited the riots, unless, they themselves went into the capital.  Which....is BS and you know it.

[BigRedBuster]

HONK!!!!!!

 

 

 

[commando]

32 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The original discussion was about the J6 hearings and you all of a sudden started talking about epps while that's not what the j6 hearings is about. People like Epps would be handled through the DOJ or local law enforcement.  But, you, for some reason, want to talk about him.  When some tried getting the conversation back on the people who the J6 hearings are about, you said....trying to claim it's nothing but political theater....even though you haven't watched them.

 

 

For some odd reason, you don't think anyone could have incited the riots, unless, they themselves went into the capital.  Which....is BS and you know it.

it's kind of like arguing that Frost never specifically told his players to play bad so you can't hold him responsible for the results

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

For some odd reason, you don't think anyone could have incited the riots, unless, they themselves went into the capital.  Which....is BS and you know it.

 

Which is kinda why if you would read the words I actually write you would see that I clearly say if “Trump and his allies” encourages people to “go into the Capitol” I would say they were inciting a riot.  I don’t say that those Trump allies had to actually go into the Capitol themselves.