January 6 Hearing

Rockall UK wrote:

joedllrt wrote:

Even the best of intentions can carry unintended consequences. January 6th has been given far more attention than it deserved. The results of the election were never in jeopardy. A handful of armed individuals were never a legitimate threat to overturn an election.

I don't know what you mean by "best intentions" or who you are referring to, but I think it's debatable whether there was or wasn't a "legitimate" threat to overturn the election. There was a riot in the US Capitol, the Vice President of the US, in the process of performing a Constitutionally mandated election procedure, had to stop and had to flee the scene is legitimate fear for his life (from people who are now in prison).

In any case, it's the attempt and incitement that gets prosecuted not the degree of success. It's not a defense to a criminal attempt charge to point out that you weren't successful in what you intended to do.

dirt wrote:

I view Trump's role in the January 6th protest the same way I view the endorsement of the BLM riots by the left. Despicable, but not really criminal. Both feeding off fear rather than statistical fact.

I tend to agree that Trump was behaving in much the same way as "the left" in endorsing their respective riots and criminal behavior, but the left's behavior doesn't excuse Trump or negate an investigation into his behavior. Moreover, he was the President and he is an identifiable person inciting an identifiable riot, whereas trying to charge "the left" for a broad range of riots and looting isn't really possible. You would have to find specific left political leaders or media commentators and tie them to inciting specific BLM riots. I don't know how a state investigative agency would be able to do that. The nexus just isn't there as far as I know.

dis wrote:

Rockall UK wrote:

I don't know what you mean by "best intentions" or who you are referring to, but I think it's debatable whether there was or wasn't a "legitimate" threat to overturn the election. There was a riot in the US Capitol, the Vice President of the US, in the process of performing a Constitutionally mandated election procedure, had to stop and had to flee the scene is legitimate fear for his life (from people who are now in prison).

In any case, it's the attempt and incitement that gets prosecuted not the degree of success. It's not a defense to a criminal attempt charge to point out that you weren't successful in what you intended to do.

I tend to agree that Trump was behaving in much the same way as "the left" in endorsing their respective riots and criminal behavior, but the left's behavior doesn't excuse Trump or negate an investigation into his behavior. Moreover, he was the President and he is an identifiable person inciting an identifiable riot, whereas trying to charge "the left" for a broad range of riots and looting isn't really possible. You would have to find specific left political leaders or media commentators and tie them to inciting specific BLM riots. I don't know how a state investigative agency would be able to do that. The nexus just isn't there as far as I know.

For it to be considered incitement, Trump would have directly told the rioters to storm the capitol. Notice how it's been almost 2 years and he's not in jail for incitement, despite this being an extremely publicized event - that should be a clue that he did not incite any crimes that day. Inviting a crowd of people to walk towards a building is not the same as telling them to raid it and attack people. Sorry guys.

The committee can refer Trump for criminal prosecution all they want, it literally means nothing legally speaking. It's basically the equivalent of calling the cops on somebody and reporting a crime. Trump's involvement into the riots has already been investigated, and the findings concluded that they were planned independent of Trump. The riot was 2 years ago, you think nobody in any law enforcement agency had any

Unkle is a box of rocks wrote:

Rockall UK wrote:

I take it that you won't be reading the Introductory Materials, or the Final Report when it comes out? Again, you really should to stay informed about what is being alleged and why. Because you seem to be pretty ignorant about it all.

If you read it, you'd soon realize that you can't characterize it all, or even much of it at all, as "lies" or "nonsense." At least the154 page Introductory Materials are full of citations to email and text exhibits exchanged by relevant parties (including some of those referred for prosecution, and those charged with Capitol rioting), and citations to recorded testimony before the January 6 Committee.

That Eastman guy, for example, is going to prison just based on his own words cited in the Introductory Materials.

Carmine isn’t just ignorant about it all. He’s ignorant about everything. I’ve seen potatoes that are sharper than Carmine. One of the dumbest, if not the dumbest, person that posts on this forum.

Sally Vix wrote:

Rockall UK wrote:

Fox News not even pretending to be real news. Whether you think the criminal referrals on Trump et al. are warranted or not, this is a matter of enormous national and historic importance. Yet Fox is going with Hunter Biden (of course), some Stacy Abrams stuff and some War on Christmas stuff (talk about dredging up old material). Embarrassing. Fox needs to clean out some of the old hacks, much the way CNN is at least trying to do.

The Hunter Biden story IS important.

The Stacy Abrams story IS important.

That MSNBC and CNN and ABC News and others are not carrying the Hunter Biden story and did not cover it leads credence that they are not legitimate news sources. The Hunter Biden scandal deserves to be covered.

On MSNBC the top 11 stories are about Jan. 6. The next 8 stories are negative ones about DeSantis, Trump and other republicans. Again, MSNBC, ABC News, CNN, NBC News are not credible news organizations. They are merely liberal propagandists. Just a shame. Walter Cronkite used to be the best.

dis wrote:

Rockall UK wrote:

I don't know what you mean by "best intentions" or who you are referring to, but I think it's debatable whether there was or wasn't a "legitimate" threat to overturn the election. There was a riot in the US Capitol, the Vice President of the US, in the process of performing a Constitutionally mandated election procedure, had to stop and had to flee the scene is legitimate fear for his life (from people who are now in prison).

In any case, it's the attempt and incitement that gets prosecuted not the degree of success. It's not a defense to a criminal attempt charge to point out that you weren't successful in what you intended to do.

I tend to agree that Trump was behaving in much the same way as "the left" in endorsing their respective riots and criminal behavior, but the left's behavior doesn't excuse Trump or negate an investigation into his behavior. Moreover, he was the President and he is an identifiable person inciting an identifiable riot, whereas trying to charge "the left" for a broad range of riots and looting isn't really possible. You would have to find specific left political leaders or media commentators and tie them to inciting specific BLM riots. I don't know how a state investigative agency would be able to do that. The nexus just isn't there as far as I know.

For it to be considered incitement, Trump would have directly told the rioters to storm the capitol.

Rockall UK wrote:

dis wrote:

For it to be considered incitement, Trump would have directly told the rioters to storm the capitol.

That's not an accurate statement of law. Who told you that? Of course you can incite a riot without "direct telling rioters to storm" a particular building.

Diss wrote:

Notice how it's been almost 2 years and he's not in jail for incitement, despite this being an extremely publicized event - that should be a clue that he did not incite any crimes that day.

That's a pretty absurd idea. Many crimes take years to investigate. A time length of two years isn't a clue of anything in matters as complex as this. Just interviewing all the witnesses and reviewing the tens of thousands of texts and email alone could take two years.

Diss wrote:

Inviting a crowd of people to walk towards a building is not the same as telling them to raid it and attack people. Sorry guys.

First, there are criminal referrals for conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to make a false statement, and obstruction of official proceeding, in addition to the insurrection charge.

But more importantly, if you read at least the Introductory Materials, you'll see in the first few pages that there is a lot more evidence going to the inciting charge than just "Inviting a crowd of people to walk towards a building." Those aren't Trump's words, they are yours. Trump is on record as saying things like "Will be wild!," "take back our country," "We fight like hell," "If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore," and "When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules."

The Introductory Material also cites to, for example, the statements of hundreds of Capitol rioters who said they were there because President Trump "instructed" them to be there to defend the US and "stop the steal." It also cites to testimony of Trump aides and friends who said Trump was aware of the threats of violence being made by various supporters prior to January 6 and despite that knowledge, refused to make public statements that things remain peaceful.

There's a lot more, and you would have to actually read the Introductory Materials to be able to post intelligently about the criminal referral and not speculate on the law or repeat erroneous information. Because right now you come off as ignorant, and also one of those types of people who blame the foot soldiers while letting the masterminds go free.

The committee can refer Trump for criminal prosecution all they want, it literally means nothing legally speaking. It's basically the equivalent of calling the cops on somebody and reporting a crime.

Obviously the referral is not conviction, so you are correct there. I don't think it's intended to be -- the Committee's primary purpose is to document what went on during these historic events. These events are going to be analyzed for decades to come, and you need a comprehensive witness and testimonial record. That's just basic.

A conviction is a long way off, as you suggest. But the referral is not the equivalent of calling the cops and reporting a crime. It's the equivalent of calling the cops and reporting a crime and also telling them that a 300+ page Report, with thousands of citations to hundreds of exhibits related to the crime, is simultaneously being delivered by a secured courier.

Unkle is a box of rocks wrote:

Rockall UK wrote:

I take it that you won't be reading the Introductory Materials, or the Final Report when it comes out? Again, you really should to stay informed about what is being alleged and why. Because you seem to be pretty ignorant about it all.

If you read it, you'd soon realize that you can't characterize it all, or even much of it at all, as "lies" or "nonsense." At least the154 page Introductory Materials are full of citations to email and text exhibits exchanged by relevant parties (including some of those referred for prosecution, and those charged with Capitol rioting), and citations to recorded testimony before the January 6 Committee.

That Eastman guy, for example, is going to prison just based on his own words cited in the Introductory Materials.

Carmine isn’t just ignorant about it all. He’s ignorant about everything. I’ve seen potatoes that are sharper than Carmine. One of the dumbest, if not the dumbest, person that posts on this forum.

Sally Vix wrote:

Rockall UK wrote:

That's not an accurate statement of law. Who told you that? Of course you can incite a riot without "direct telling rioters to storm" a particular building.

That's a pretty absurd idea. Many crimes take years to investigate. A time length of two years isn't a clue of anything in matters as complex as this. Just interviewing all the witnesses and reviewing the tens of thousands of texts and email alone could take two years.

First, there are criminal referrals for conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to make a false statement, and obstruction of official proceeding, in addition to the insurrection charge.

But more importantly, if you read at least the Introductory Materials, you'll see in the first few pages that there is a lot more evidence going to the inciting charge than just "Inviting a crowd of people to walk towards a building." Those aren't Trump's words, they are yours. Trump is on record as saying things like "Will be wild!," "take back our country," "We fight like hell," "If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore," and "When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules."

The Introductory Material also cites to, for example, the statements of hundreds of Capitol rioters who said they were there because President Trump "instructed" them to be there to defend the US and "stop the steal." It also cites to testimony of Trump aides and friends who said Trump was aware of the threats of violence being made by various supporters prior to January 6 and despite that knowledge, refused to make public statements that things remain peaceful.

There's a lot more, and you would have to actually read the Introductory Materials to be able to post intelligently about the criminal referral and not speculate on the law or repeat erroneous information. Because right now you come off as ignorant, and also one of those types of people who blame the foot soldiers while letting the masterminds go free.

Obviously the referral is not conviction, so you are correct there. I don't think it's intended to be -- the Committee's primary purpose is to document what went on during these historic events. These events are going to be analyzed for decades to come, and you need a comprehensive witness and testimonial record. That's just basic.

A conviction is a long way off, as you suggest. But the referral is not the equivalent of calling the cops and reporting a crime. It's the equivalent of calling the cops and reporting a crime and also telling them that a 300+ page Report, with thousands of citations to hundreds of exhibits related to the crime, is simultaneously being delivered by a secured courier.

I lot of what you said is good stuff and I agree with it.

The reason Trump will never be indicted for inciting a riot is because he said this ... "March down to the Capitol peacefully and encourage your Congressperson on." I don't remember the exact quote but he said to march down to the Capitol PEACEFULLY. That could never be construed as inciting a riot. LIbs - you lost again!

The Problem wrote:

Unkle is a box of rocks wrote:

Carmine isn’t just ignorant about it all. He’s ignorant about everything. I’ve seen potatoes that are sharper than Carmine. One of the dumbest, if not the dumbest, person that posts on this forum.

Aaanndd this is the problem with politics in this country. I'm no Trump supporter, but the only way you can think Trump should be referred for prosecution is to take many very long leaps of assumption, most of which are ridiculous. They made their case with NO evidence from the other side. This is the USA. We don't do that. I hate when Trump is proven right because THAT'S what keeps his supporters going. And Trump was 100% right about this committee. And it is ugly. And the only thing liberals have is to call people names like you do in this post. Your condescension is so off-putting and completely unfair. What's worse is that we have a democrat party that gets away with this kind of thing daily. And there is no accountability. It's sad. Sadder still is that there will be no introspection to this comment either. Just a bunch of down votes - because that's what we've been reduced to.

The Problem wrote:

Unkle is a box of rocks wrote:

Carmine isn’t just ignorant about it all. He’s ignorant about everything. I’ve seen potatoes that are sharper than Carmine. One of the dumbest, if not the dumbest, person that posts on this forum.

Aaanndd this is the problem with politics in this country. I'm no Trump supporter, but the only way you can think Trump should be referred for prosecution is to take many very long leaps of assumption, most of which are ridiculous. They made their case with NO evidence from the other side. This is the USA. We don't do that. I hate when Trump is proven right because THAT'S what keeps his supporters going. And Trump was 100% right about this committee. And it is ugly. And the only thing liberals have is to call people names like you do in this post. Your condescension is so off-putting and completely unfair. What's worse is that we have a democrat party that gets away with this kind of thing daily. And there is no accountability. It's sad. Sadder still is that there will be no introspection to this comment either. Just a bunch of down votes - because that's what we've been reduced to.

Sally Vix wrote:

Rockall UK wrote:

That's not an accurate statement of law. Who told you that? Of course you can incite a riot without "direct telling rioters to storm" a particular building.

That's a pretty absurd idea. Many crimes take years to investigate. A time length of two years isn't a clue of anything in matters as complex as this. Just interviewing all the witnesses and reviewing the tens of thousands of texts and email alone could take two years.

First, there are criminal referrals for conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to make a false statement, and obstruction of official proceeding, in addition to the insurrection charge.

But more importantly, if you read at least the Introductory Materials, you'll see in the first few pages that there is a lot more evidence going to the inciting charge than just "Inviting a crowd of people to walk towards a building." Those aren't Trump's words, they are yours. Trump is on record as saying things like "Will be wild!," "take back our country," "We fight like hell," "If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore," and "When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules."

The Introductory Material also cites to, for example, the statements of hundreds of Capitol rioters who said they were there because President Trump "instructed" them to be there to defend the US and "stop the steal." It also cites to testimony of Trump aides and friends who said Trump was aware of the threats of violence being made by various supporters prior to January 6 and despite that knowledge, refused to make public statements that things remain peaceful.

There's a lot more, and you would have to actually read the Introductory Materials to be able to post intelligently about the criminal referral and not speculate on the law or repeat erroneous information. Because right now you come off as ignorant, and also one of those types of people who blame the foot soldiers while letting the masterminds go free.

Obviously the referral is not conviction, so you are correct there. I don't think it's intended to be -- the Committee's primary purpose is to document what went on during these historic events. These events are going to be analyzed for decades to come, and you need a comprehensive witness and testimonial record. That's just basic.

A conviction is a long way off, as you suggest. But the referral is not the equivalent of calling the cops and reporting a crime. It's the equivalent of calling the cops and reporting a crime and also telling them that a 300+ page Report, with thousands of citations to hundreds of exhibits related to the crime, is simultaneously being delivered by a secured courier.

I lot of what you said is good stuff and I agree with it.

The reason Trump will never be indicted for inciting a riot is because he said this ... "March down to the Capitol peacefully and encourage your Congressperson on." I don't remember the exact quote but he said to march down to the Capitol PEACEFULLY. That could never be construed as inciting a riot. LIbs - you lost again!

Sally Vix wrote:

Rockall UK wrote:

That's not an accurate statement of law. Who told you that? Of course you can incite a riot without "direct telling rioters to storm" a particular building.

That's a pretty absurd idea. Many crimes take years to investigate. A time length of two years isn't a clue of anything in matters as complex as this. Just interviewing all the witnesses and reviewing the tens of thousands of texts and email alone could take two years.

First, there are criminal referrals for conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to make a false statement, and obstruction of official proceeding, in addition to the insurrection charge.

But more importantly, if you read at least the Introductory Materials, you'll see in the first few pages that there is a lot more evidence going to the inciting charge than just "Inviting a crowd of people to walk towards a building." Those aren't Trump's words, they are yours. Trump is on record as saying things like "Will be wild!," "take back our country," "We fight like hell," "If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore," and "When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules."

The Introductory Material also cites to, for example, the statements of hundreds of Capitol rioters who said they were there because President Trump "instructed" them to be there to defend the US and "stop the steal." It also cites to testimony of Trump aides and friends who said Trump was aware of the threats of violence being made by various supporters prior to January 6 and despite that knowledge, refused to make public statements that things remain peaceful.

There's a lot more, and you would have to actually read the Introductory Materials to be able to post intelligently about the criminal referral and not speculate on the law or repeat erroneous information. Because right now you come off as ignorant, and also one of those types of people who blame the foot soldiers while letting the masterminds go free.

Obviously the referral is not conviction, so you are correct there. I don't think it's intended to be -- the Committee's primary purpose is to document what went on during these historic events. These events are going to be analyzed for decades to come, and you need a comprehensive witness and testimonial record. That's just basic.

A conviction is a long way off, as you suggest. But the referral is not the equivalent of calling the cops and reporting a crime. It's the equivalent of calling the cops and reporting a crime and also telling them that a 300+ page Report, with thousands of citations to hundreds of exhibits related to the crime, is simultaneously being delivered by a secured courier.

I lot of what you said is good stuff and I agree with it.

The reason Trump will never be indicted for inciting a riot is because he said this ... "March down to the Capitol peacefully and encourage your Congressperson on." I don't remember the exact quote but he said to march down to the Capitol PEACEFULLY. That could never be construed as inciting a riot. LIbs - you lost again!