43 cowards who violated oath and voted in favor of the failed putsch

History is one of the few venues for the oppressed to take their oppressor into account.

It's why China couldn't get away with bungling the Cultural Revolution and killing 20-50 million from famine.

We'll figure out how much of the 480k+ lives Trump bungled eventually. So that isn't a waste of time to me.

 

The.tweet.was.doctored.

 

**** I guess that magically means Trump didn't incite a riot to subvert a democratic process.

 

The result and conclusion are moot. If Trump says "Don't go through that door", and people do it anyway, there is NO CASE AGAINST HIM. He made his supporters angry and got them riled up, but also said to be peaceful. No case.

 

Ah! Good argument! I commend you!

However, we can "fight" for causes without violence, can't we? His use of the word "fight" was never used in a way that directly incited physical violence, and every politician there knew it. No case.

Now if he'd said something like "fight the police" or "fight against our security forces", then you'd have a case. But his use of the word was more broad and more subjective.

 

The results and conclusions absolutely matter when you very well know what the result and conclusions would be before hand based on basic common sense that if you tell people that an election was stolen and a illegal usurper is about hold office in the white house for the first time in American history after all legal recourse has been spent, they will commit violence. It's an inevitable conclusion that everyone read from a mile away including Trump.

 

You'd make a terrible lawyer. Your argument of "he made them angry, so he's to blame for their actions" just doesn't hold up in a court. Our politicians realize this, even if you don't.

 

He made them angry? No he peddled a narrative that left no choice for these people besides violence.

If I told a group of people falsely that there is a building a block away that is murdering toddlers to harvest organs as we speak right now, and the people I tell believe me and do the next rational thing in their head of storming that building with firearms, I would be held legally liable for any damage done in that building including if someone died.

 

Disagree. He was lying about a stolen election, telling people to fight to save the country, and he wasn't talking to politicians and lawmakers. He was talking to a crowd of citizens whom he had lied to for months. It was absolutely about violence and his reaction/lack of reaction after the election supports that.

 

Mitch "Devil's Advocate" McConnell

We witnessed a historic confession of hypocrisy and deceit on Saturday when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went to the floor after voting to acquit Donald Trump in the former president’s Senate impeachment trial. McConnell said, “Former President Trump’s actions [that] preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty.” He added, “Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.”

But McConnell said he couldn’t vote to convict because the trial had come too late, after Trump was out office — even though it was McConnell himself who had kept the Senate out for the remainder of Trump’s term.

McConnell suggested that a criminal prosecution of Trump could be in the cards, a stunning confession of how he regards the seriousness of the allegations and the extent of the evidence. The only saving grace is that McConnell will be forever remembered as the one who intentionally let someone worthy of criminal investigation get away.

...

The New York Times underscored how McConnell set up the trial on terms that would allow him to then vote to acquit. “Democrats were furious, pointing out that their vote to impeach came while Mr. Trump remained in office and that it was Mr. McConnell who refused to call the Senate back into session to start the trial before he left office.”

​

Rest of the article goes into how congress could try to use the 14th Amendment to bar an insurrectionist from running for office again.

 

The content was 100% accurate. The words were not at all doctored. You'll have to do better

 

Republican senator predictably and willfully overlooked the actions of Trump against the best interest of the country for cheap political benefits. They are cowards.

As for Cuomo, I have never liked him. He is a bully and would be whatever party if that is what it took to win. He is a fascist like the former President. He doesn’t care about the people of New York. He needs to be removed from office.

Politicians should have a little fear of the people. Trump and Cuomo should both fear sitting in a jail cell together. Preferably together.

 

If it was so damning than why mess with it at all?

If I'm in any factfinding capacity and i find out the party seeking to convince me has doctored information, credibility and probative value plummets to zero.

He was acquitted because he deserved to be.....twice.

 

Donald Trump could skull **** a lady on national tv and he would still be aquitted.

Just for some perspective. In the history of the United States, only 7 US senators voted to convict a president of the same party in an impeachment trial. All 7 were votes to convict Trump.

 

Nothing was doctored. Why? Because they didn’t need to. The evidence was overwhelming.

Trump didn’t have the election stolen from him. He lost as an incumbent because he was largely ineffective and alienated too many voters.

The vote was held in arguably the most down the line party time in US history, yet Trump’s actions were so egregious that 7 Republicans broke ranks and voted to acquit.

Trump isn’t in office anymore. His influence and power will continue to fall. For now, the Graham’s and Cruz’s of the Senate will push to keep MAGA alive because they fear retribution politically from their own party if Trump is marginalized.

 

Not illegal. And not the first politician to do so.

Not illegal. And not the first politician to do so.

Not illegal. And not the first politician to do so.

That may be your interpretation, but was never directly stated by him.

No case.

 

Typically I'd join in on the outrage that government didn't fulfill it's role in doing what's right for the country, but I think we all saw the writing on the wall. At this point, I'm surprised people have energy left to be outraged.

If anything, I think it highlights the importance of getting politically involved as a citizen on a municipal and county level as expecting anything at the state level or above is just asking for more fuel to be outraged over in the future. Local elections and policy matter more anyways. They're what determines bidding wars for factories in your city, whether pot holes get filled in a prompt fashion on your way to work and whether law enforcement are fulfilling their duties as civil servants for the local community. Plus only something like 10 to 13% of people actually vote in local elections compared to at least half the voting population on state and national elections. Your single vote carries more weight.

 

What a load of crap! Do you even hear yourself? The protestors had no choice besides violence?! Of course they did. We all have that choice. Each adult that did was wrong to do so, and must be held accountable for their own actions.

No you wouldn't. You really know nothing of the law.
In that hypothetical situation, the people you told would have the choice to believe you or to not believe you. And if they believed you, the proper response for them would be to contact the authorities; not take matters into their own hands.

 

Do you understand that all legal recourse was spent in this situation where law enforcement is no longer a solution? So my analogy would also include "and the police are in on the toddler murders".

And it isn't some random dude. It's the god damn President of the United States, his political allies and his media allies. If the rioters trusted these sources, their inevitable conclusion would be violence.

Those people trusted their president and truly believed that an illegal president was about to go into office and no legal recourse could prevent it. So yes, the inevitable conclusion would be violence.

 

Right. You don’t get to use inflammatory language right after losing the election making references to violence. You don’t get to tell people that they will lose America forever if they don’t stop Biden from being President, you don’t get to make multiple use of war language and then point to a 5 word disclaimer and say “see I never wanted violence”. It doesn’t work like that legally or ethically - and never will.

Do you know who else tried that defense in the USA? The KKK. Hitler did the same with Jewish shop owners. So did Hugo Chavez.