Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

The University of Chicago did a very compelling study of Jan 6 rioters that gets to this topic. You know what the #1 through line was that all of them had in common??

The highest percentage commonality is that they came from areas in the countries that saw the sharpest rise in racial diversity.

So it really had nothing to do with being Conservative, but it’s also no surprise that these are the people who were drawn to Trumps message of racial bigotry and his fantasy of border walls and travel bans that put a Wakanda style bowl over the country from brown and black people entering.

The simple solution I think is bring in a candidate in 2024 with a platform that actually speaks to the values of Jesus Christ. Someone who stands for loving thy Neigbor instead of hating them and blaming them for everything you hate about your life. These people went to the capital to fight because they literally felt like if Trump is not installed as an autocratic dictator, the US and their hometown they will become a racial minority and suffer as a result.

I mean that’s the animating factor of their entire party right now and you really cannot deny that. Go look right now at polling. It’s immigration that’s always the #1 or #2 issue even with folks like yourself who claim to just be conservative.

All this is to say is the entire half of the country has a major problem and it stems from a moral collapse first and foremost. Liberals have issues too in this modern era but none of them immediately threaten Democracy in the same way as this #1 animating issue does.

 

the "conservative" president of the united states incited the insurrection. he told his supporters to "fight like hell" and that he would lead them down pennsylvania ave (he didnt). his supporters tried to overthrow our government in order to prevent him from being kicked out of office. he told them that he loved them and that they were very special.

now the republicans are going around saying january 6th wasnt a big deal and we should move on, democrats are only investigating b/c of politics, it was actually antifa and democrats who stormed the capitol and the rioters are actually political prisoners who are being treated unfairly.

especially on this message board, i see way more "conservatives" complaining about the investigation into january 6th than the actual insurrection. in fact, i dont know that ive ever seen any "conservatives" willing to put the blame on trump and call for him to be held accountable.

donald trump is the leading candidate for 2024 in the GOP and its not even close...seems that the GOP and "conservatives" are willing to re-elect trump after what he did so i think at this point its totally fair and accurate to equate them with january 6th.

the republican/trump party must own what happened on january 6th - its entirely on them. especially when the vast majority of republicans believe that biden didnt actually win the election.

 

Joe Biden?

Rs don't vote for values of Jesus Christ. Pretend that they do, but they seriously have not for a very long time.

 

Liz Cheney: These non-privileged texts are further evidence of President Trump's supreme dereliction of duty during those 187 minutes. And Mr. Meadows' testimony will bear on another key question before this committee. Did Donald Trump through action or inaction corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress's official proceedings to count electoral votes?

Below article is 2M old

The Easiest Case for the Prosecution: Trump's Aiding and Abetting Unlawful Occupation of the Capitol (justsecurity.org)

Knowing whether former President Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 violated one or more criminal statutes is important for several reasons. First, the public should know whether Trump committed any crimes. Second, identifying potential crimes can shape what the House Select Committee investigates. Third, Trump’s potential criminality affects Congress’s ability to obtain information in the face of a claim of executive privilege. And finally, identifying likely crimes could determine whether the Justice Department pursues a criminal investigation and then prosecutes the former president.

...

By violating his legal duty to do what he could to end the unlawful occupation of the Capitol, Trump became an accomplice to that crime. He is subject to the same punishment as the rioters who entered the building.

More than 575 of the 674 people charged in the Jan. 6 insurrection have been charged with unlawfully entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds. This offense is usually a misdemeanor, but it becomes a felony punishable by as much as 10 years in prison when it results in significant bodily injury or when an offender uses or carries a dangerous weapon or firearm during the crime.

Failing to prevent a crime usually does not make someone an accomplice, but it is sufficient when this person had a legal duty to intervene. For this reason, a railroad conductor who failed to prevent passengers from transporting bootleg liquor was himself convicted of transporting the liquor. Similarly, a parent who made no effort to stop an assault on her child was guilty of the assault herself. And a police officer who arranges to be somewhere else at the time of a robbery aids and abets the robbery. This officer can be convicted along with the robbers at the scene.

The Constitution gave Trump a clear legal duty to intervene. Article II, Section 3 provides, “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision permits good-faith exercises of law-enforcement discretion, but a president unmistakably violates his duty when he refuses to enforce the law because he wants a crime to occur—when, for example, he hopes to advance his own interests through the criminal conduct of others. As abundant evidence shows, that’s what transpired on Jan. 6.

Trump’s ability to enforce the law was unique. Like other public officials, he could have sought the assistance of additional police officers or military forces, but, unlike anyone else in America, he had a less costly and probably more effective way to bring the crime to a halt: He could simply have asked his followers to stop.

More than three hours after the rioters violently entered the Capitol grounds and two hours after they forced their way into the building, Trump did post a video telling them to go home. But he resisted sending any cease-and-desist message earlier, thereby violating his duty to see the law enforced.

Trump had another legal duty—a duty apart from his duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”—to do what he could to end the occupation. Even if his direction to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell” was not intended to start a riot, it led to violence and placed the Vice President and members of Congress in peril. A person who creates a physical danger—even innocently—has a legal duty to take reasonable measures to prevent injury from occurring. Someone who’s started a fire can’t just let it burn out of control.

Trump could not be convicted without proof of his criminal intent, but his desire for continued occupation of the Capitol seems clear. Why else did he fail for hours to ask his supporters to desist, and why, even then, did he tell these criminals “we love you” and “you’re very special”? And why, according to ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl, did the first takes of his message leave out a request to end the occupation, prompting his aides to request repeated do-overs?

...

The most serious of the crimes on the roadmap is inciting an insurrection, but, as the authors acknowledged, a court might rule that Trump’s remarks on Jan. 6 were protected by the First Amendment. That obstacle would disappear if the government sought to punish, not the incitement (or not just the incitement), but Trump’s refusal to enforce the law after the insurrection began. Even if Trump’s remarks could not be punished, they could be received in evidence as proof of his intent. Although his call to “fight like hell” initially might have seemed ambiguous, the ambiguity disappeared when Trump’s supporters invaded the building and he refused to call them off.

Trump surely must have intended at least the illegal occupation. In addition, his refusal to enforce the law would make him an accomplice to every other crime he sought to promote.

President Biden is said to have little appetite for prosecuting his predecessor, and Attorney General Garland may share the president’s concern that an attempt to send Trump to prison would polarize our nation even further. There is indeed reason for concern, but Biden could avoid imprisoning Trump and could move toward healing America by pardoning him and other Jan. 6 offenders after a conviction. Truth could precede forgiveness. Biden might follow the example of President Washington who, in the first U.S. pardons ever given, extended amnesty to participants in the Whiskey Rebellion and set aside the death sentences of two of its leaders.

The time to forgive Trump is not now, and the way to forgive him is not for the Justice Department to rule out prosecution from the outset. Far from desisting or repenting, Trump continues to praise the crime he aided and abetted. On Oct. 21, as the House asked the Justice Department to prosecute Steve Bannon for criminal contempt, Trump issued this “war is peace” proclamation: “The insurrection took place on . . . Election Day. Jan. 6 was the protest!” Prosecuting 674 foot soldiers while exempting their chief for political reasons would be disgraceful.

 

If Biden pardoned Trump it would make me sick. That would encourage that psychopath to do even worse things in the future. He will show he is invincible to ever paying for the lies, cheating, stealing, propaganda spreading, incitement of hate and violence, and treasonous acts to maintain power in the future. It won't heal America to know Presidents turn a blind eye to other Presidents' criminal and dangerous acts.

 

What if he traded that pardon for exile from the US and an apology to the American people for conning them for years?

I mean if it’s a tool in the chest to use to effectively end this authoritarian movement to overthrow our democracy it cannot be outright dismissed imo. Not saying the thought doesn’t make me sick to my stomach though.

 

American Christianity has always been pretty dekcuf up, though.

 

One of trump's lawyers trying to sue to prevent Verizon to release cell phone records to January 6 House Commission... those cell phone records must really be the smoking gun.



His arguments are as expected, beyond ridiculousness...

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/14/eastman-sues-jan6-records-524441

 

LOL you still trust trump? He can be exiled and still incide violence and continue conning america

 

A surprise to nobody... Except of course to those who still won't beleive it. They didn't accept reality the first time and they won't accept it the second go-round either

For the sake of our nation, it would help everyone so much to just accept actual facts and data.

 

Adam Schiff doctoring the text messages is a ballsy move. Meadows is in trouble.

 

Trump would and never will admit he is a con. He certainly would never admit he was wrong.

 

I can't wait to hear what they find.

 

Except Schiff didn't alter the message

try again MAGA

 

“The Select Committee on Monday created and provided Representative Schiff a graphic to use during the business meeting quoting from a text message from ‘a lawmaker’ to Mr. Meadows,” the spokesman wrote. “The graphic read, ‘On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.’”

“In the graphic, the period at the end of that sentence was added inadvertently,” the spokesman admitted. “The Select Committee is responsible for and regrets the error.”

The Jan. 6 committee spokesman did not explain how one could “inadvertently” cut a sentence in half and eliminate the final two paragraphs of a detailed legal summary, nor did he explain why Schiff attributed the content of the text to Jordan, “a lawmaker,” rather than to Schmitz, the attorney who wrote it.

 

Schiff altered the graphic himself yes or no?