Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The Speech As Incitement Case Against Trump Continues to Crumble

The Speech As Incitement Case Against Trump Continues to Crumble

“[On] January 5, 2021, an unknown individual placed two pipe bombs in Washington, D.C. One pipe bomb was placed at the headquarters of the RNC … and the other was placed at the headquarters of the DNC,” the FBI said.

https://youtu.be/vEgIyv9bJz4

Not long after the Capitol riots, the evidence was already starting to pile up that the Capitol breaching was likely a preplanned attack rather than a spontaneous one “incited” by President Trump during the speech he gave that day.

CBS News investigative journalist Catherine Herridge was the first to report on the pipe bombs that were found at the headquarters of both the RNC and the DNC within thirty minutes of each other on January 6th as President Trump was still giving his speech:

Around that same time, NBC News reported that the FBI and the NYPD alerted the Capitol Police in advance as to the possibility that there would be violence and rioting on the day of Trump’s speech. Such news countered previous assertions by federal law enforcement officials that they were unaware of any intelligence suggesting protesters would become violent and possibly storm the Capitol.

Despite this information, the House voted to impeach Trump on January 13th on a single charge that he incited an insurrection with the speech he gave on January 6th.

Six days later, an even clearer picture and more detailed timeline was revealed via the Washington Post, which published a thorough write-up acknowledging the attack “was not an entirely impulsive outburst of violence.” The piece ran with the headline “Self-styled militia members planned on storming the U.S. Capitol days in advance of Jan. 6 attack, court documents say”:

The arrests this weekend of several people with alleged ties to far-right extremist groups, including the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys and the Three Percenters, suggest that the riot was not an entirely impulsive outburst of violence but an event instigated or exploited by organized groups. Hours of video posted on social media and pored over by investigators have focused on individuals in military-style gear moving together.

“This is the first step toward identifying and understanding that there was some type of concerted conspiracy here,” said one senior official with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, which is leading the investigation.

More information has emerged since that time about when the pipe bombs were said to have been planted at the RNC and DNC locations:

The FBI disclosed Friday that investigators believe two pipe bombs discovered near the U.S. Capitol were planted the night before the Jan. 6 siege.

Based on analysis of videos recorded by surveillance cameras in the area, investigators said whoever planted the bombs did so between 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on Jan. 5. The bombs were discovered the next day, as Congress was preparing to certify the Electoral College votes for president.

Videos obtained by the FBI and independently by The Washington Post, which posted them on its website, show a person believed to be the suspect walking through the neighborhood, wearing a gray hoodie, a mask and carrying a backpack.

The FBI published the information on their website and Twitter feed as well:

According to the Washington Post, some officials are speculating that the pipe bombs were deliberately planted in order to distract the Capitol Police during Trump’s speech:

Steven Sund, who resigned as chief of the Capitol Police in the wake of the riot, has said he suspects the bombs were an intentional effort to draw officers away from the grounds of the Capitol.

Herridge reported that upping the reward in hopes of identifying the person or persons behind the pipe bombs was considered a “central element to the broader investigation” as to who or what groups were behind the Capitol riots:

With the Senate’s impeachment trial just days away, all of this information puts a big dent in the “incitement” case against Trump. Let’s review this from the House’s impeachment article:

Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. There, he reiterated false claims that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.” He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged — and foreseeably resulted in — lawless action at the Capitol, such as: “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive and seditious acts. [Emphasis mine]

The Democrats’ chief argument against Trump is that he “incited” rioters with his speech. It’s always been a specious argument at best. But if all of this was preplanned – and it’s becoming more obvious by the day that it was, their case falls apart.

Not that facts matter to these people. I mean the outcome of the House’s impeachment vote was preordained, regardless of the information major media outlets that are respected by Democrats reported that contradicted their assertions. But the Senate is another matter entirely. Senators view themselves as the more serious and “mature” members of Congress and thus more willing – at least on the surface – to entertain the possibility that the House got it wrong.

After the Senate’s vote last week on the constitutionality of holding a Senate trial after a president has left office, it’s clear that the vast majority of Senate Republicans are not going to go along with the Pelosi’s and Schumer’s games. But will some Democrats, like Sen. Joe Manchin (WV) and/or Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), join Republicans in putting a stop to the farce in light of the growing amount of evidence that shows the riots at the Capitol were preplanned?

Stay tuned.

— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“…the evidence was already starting to pile up that the Capitol breaching was likely a preplanned attack rather than a spontaneous one “incited” by President Trump…”

Hey that doesn’t fit the democrat narrative. They’re not looking for facts here, they’re following an agenda.

    Halcyon Daze in reply to UserP. | January 31, 2021 at 4:17 pm

    Game plans.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to UserP. | January 31, 2021 at 6:17 pm

    “people with alleged ties to far-right extremist groups, including the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys and the Three Percenters”

    I chose to take this claim with a grain of salt. I expect to see well documented forensic evidence.

    It is just as likely that BLM and/or Antifa was behind those bombs. We already have ample evidence that they are violent, and evidence that both the FBI and DOJ are hotbeds of like minded people.

      Grrr8 American in reply to JusticeDelivered. | January 31, 2021 at 8:17 pm

      Indeed. I can’t render any kind of informed opinion regarding 3 Percenters or Proud Boys (don’t know anything about them). But this doesn’t fit what I understand about the Oath Keepers (former police / military).

      The Capitol breach is suspicious for a whole bunch of reasons. First of all, by some reports, folks left the Washington Monument area about 20 minutes after Trump actually started speaking (which was about 1:20 AFTER expected). I’ve seen copies of flyers online from days before telling Lefties (Antifa; ShutDown DC and ?) to meet around the Monument.

      IF they were supposed to then proceed to the Capitol (with or without the cooperation of the Capitol Police), it would have been planned for about 12:30 – 1:00. Why? Because they expected Trump to start at 11:00 (not 12) — so giving him an hour, they would have planned to blend with the Trump supporters and march at the appointed time. I suspect that while Trump started about an hour later than anticipated, they were committed to their original schedule.

      That’s why the violence at the Capitol started while Trump was still speaking!

      I was there, and left the Ellipse after Trump finished. By the time I got to the Capitol it was about 2:00. I was outside the building, adjacent to it (never went in). I saw what to me were clearly Antifa agitators — white males, twenties to early thirties — with mostly or entirely black under, say, a Trump hat of flag. More importantly, with helmets, goggles or gas masks, and bullhorns, often working in groups of two or more. Often shouting slogans and enticements to the crowd to gin them up.

      This does not fit the profile of Trump supporters. It very much fits the profile of trained, Left-wing agitators.

        There are loads of documented videos and pictures of Trump supporters in and outside of the building including those with goggles masked etc some with anti antifa tops on. There really isn’t any evidence of some kind of false flag operation. So far as far as I know 1 guy from antifa has been caught up in it. The rest are very probably Trump supporters.

          felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 8:13 am

          So your argument is basically: it is physically impossible for anybody but a ‘Trump cultist’ to wear MAGA paraphernalia; therefore videos showing people wearing those are the most reliable and direct evidence imaginable for Trump’s culpability?

          Despite the attack being against specific instructions (“peacefully and patriotically”), and quite obviously providing Democrats with their Reichstagsbrand opportunity to grab power, “there isn’t really any evidence” suggesting there might be some sort of “false flag” operation.

          Supporters of Biden and enemies of America like Antifa and BLM had motive, means, and opportunity to pull it off. No matter how ludicrous, and even in the face of clear evidence of their falsity, a compliant press has been reliably spreading anti-Trump fake news. Just three examples: Russia hoax, Biden’s favorite, the “fine people” hoax, and the Kavanaugh accusations. Given the eagerness of most of the press to go along with any story damaging to Trump there was little reason to believe such a ploy would not work.

          Trump supporters on the other hand had no motive to storm the Capitol and motive to peacefully and patriotically make their voice heard in front of the Capitol. How they would have the means or an opportunity for the “insurrection” is far from clear. Where did the weapons materialize from? If, as the article of impeachment claims, the speech “incited” the “insurrection” there can not have been prior planning by the “incited.” And how did the attendees manage to get to the crime scene in time to participate in the “insurrection”?

          So while attendees of the rally have arguably neither means nor opportunity to participate in the “insurrection” and those that had means and opportunity didn’t attend the rally, the obvious answer to the simple cui bono test points in the same direction. The attack plays into the hands of Democrats and enemies of the United States of America, and damages Trump and his movement. Plenty of reason to at least wait for the result of at least a preliminary, professional and impartial investigation.

          But Democrats, their lackey media, and ten useful idiots seized upon the opportunity to reenact the Reichstagsbrand scenario to come after the opposition and are loath to wait for any real investigation to be conducted.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 10:10 am

          @felixrigidus

          Well i tend to call a spade a spade … if someone dresses as a Maga supporter at a Trump rally with videos and selfies of themselves profiling as Trump supporters that seems well pretty robust. Whereas the false flag operation lacks any evidence at all. So the reasonable conclusion is Trump supporters.

          Your other point about Trump inciting the riot is a fair one, that is more muddied but id argue that whipping up your supporters with a falsehood about a stolen election (yes i know you believe it was; that doesnt change the fact it remains an unsupported assertion) is likely to inflame people. Its a pretty serious thing to say – stole the election. That goes to the heart of everything.

          Your points regarding hoaxes is perplexing. The Russia Hoax as you describe it has an evidence base, his legal team is known to have met Russian sate associates. Additionally the threat of no military aid to the Ukraine is known as well. It gets to the point of how much evidence do you need before you’ll admit the man is corrupt. I mean Trump has spent the entire presidency making money out of it. With regard to the fine people quote well I wasn’t sure what to make of that at the time, it was poorly worded. He could have avoided the situation just by condemning the dickheads there and not adding anything more. As for the Kavanaugh situation well its pretty important to know if he did what he was accused of right? That’s proper scrutiny.

          Your next point seems to make out that the Trump rally and incitement speech was isolated. He had inflamed tensions even prior to the election claiming fraud so yes it was perfectly possible that Trump supporters came armed.

          I don’t see how you can argue against Trump supporters being responsible many of them have been arrested and admitted they are Trump supporters. A number asked for pardons because they were fighting for Trump. Im a tad incredulous that you are even trying to say it was people other than Trump supporters.

          Mac45 in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 1:55 pm

          Mark

          Still living in the land of Gumdrop Mountains and Unicorns, eh Buddy?

          From currently available evidence, it is apparent that some type of incursion into the Capitol was planned prior to the President’s speech. We have documentary evidence that it included, Trump supporters, AntiFa/BLM activists and wandering lunatics. What we do not have, at this point, is who planned it? Was it Trump radicals? If so, were the AntiFa/BLM activists just party-crashers? Was it planned by AntiFa/BLM activists or their handlers? If so, did it coincide with a planned Trump supporter demonstration at the Capitol building or were the Trump people lured into participating? What we do know is that the incursion involved a minuscule percentage of the Trump supporters in the city at the time and that there was actually very little actual damage done, to either the building or to human beings onsite. Perhaps we will someday learn who actually organized this incident and for what purpose. Of course, such information will likely be ignored, as has the evidence concerning Russiagate.

          Now, as to Trump actively inciting the incursion/riot, there is absolutely no proof that this is true. None at all. Unlike the charges of election law violations and fraud stealing the 2020 Presidential election, where we have documentary, video and eyewitness evidence of blatant election law violations and possible, if not probable fraud. It is not as if these election charges are being made in a vacuum. Is there definitive evidence of sufficient vote fraud to have stolen the election? We do not know. Why? Because no one in authority will conduct a comprehensive investigation, or any real investigation at all.

          Te Russian Collusion Hoax never had an evidence base. We have learned, through released documents, that the IC community did not believe that Trump, or members of his campaign, were colluding with Russian state agents in any regard, other than being offered possible negative information [opposition research], on Trump’s opponent, by people who may have had some connection to Russian government interests. Clinton campaign people met with the same Russian “agents” that Trump’s people met with, through the agency of Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS also provided the Steele Dossier to the DNC/Clinton Campaign. We know that the IC predicate for opening the FBI Crossfire Hurricane counter intelligence investigation was based upon extremely weak if not dubious grounds, which included actually setting up Trump campaign people as patsies to create a case. We know that, not only did the FBI have strong reason to suspect, of they did not outright know, that Steele was unreliable and used him anyway.

          The fine people quote, in reference to Charlottesville, was in the same context as those about the fine people in the BLM demonstrations made by Democrats. The bulk of the people involved in the pro-memorial demonstrations, were not members of any white supremacist organization and were engaged in a a planned, government approved, 1st Amendment protest. They were set upon by AntiFa and other radical goons and physically attacked. They did not instigate any violence, unlike the AntiFa/BLM “demonstrations”.

          The Kavanaugh debacle was nothing more than an 11th hour political smear attack upon the man, engineered through Congressional Democrats. There was NO evidence presented to support any of the charges against Kavanaugh. NONE. Even the witnesses who were supposed to support Ford either couldn’t or wouldn’t corroborate here claims or actually repudiated them. The other accusers were either proved to be liars or were totally unbelievable. And, even the Dems knew there was no there there, before they got started.

          With no evidence at all that Trump knew about, let alone incited any one to storm the Capitol building, he was impeached. Let me repeat that. With no evidence at all that Trump knew about, let alone incited anyone to storm the Capitol building, he was impeached. Yet, in the face of mounting credible evidence that significant election fraud occurred in the 2020 Presidential election, no action is taken by anyone in authority. How much more glaring a double standard is necessary to get people to understand that all of the attacks on Trump are motivated solely by politics and that no action, legal or illegal, will not be used to attack him and his constituency?

          Arminius in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 2:27 pm

          mark311, your pretense of being the “voice of reason” while clearly a leftist troll has long been untenable. According to a very sympathetic biography by fellow leftist Sanford Horwitt, “Let the call me rebel. Saul Alinsky: His life and legacy,” in 1972 some Tulane university students planned to disrupt then UN ambassador George H.W. Bush’s speech. They planned on booing him, as they anticipated Bush would defend Nixon’s Vietnam policies. Alinsky advised them not to. Instead, he advised them to wear Klan robes, and cheer Bush when he defended Nixon’s Vietnam policies, and bring signs praising Nixon.

          Leftists have used this childish tactic countless times over the years. Most recently during Trump’s 2016 campaign. In fact, at some campaign events they literally did put on Klan hoods. They were denounced by Trump and booed by his supporters.

          But along comes dim-bulb mark311 claiming he’s just calling a “spade a spade.” So I suppose fifty years into this leftist smear tactic it just doesn’t exist. No, apparently Klansmen are the only people in the world who have access to white sheets. Or, now, MAGA paraphenalia.

          And there are reams of photographic evidence of known Antifa/#BLM violent extremists leading the charge into the Capitol. Here’s one such individual; John Earle Sullivan.

          https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1347362830102749186?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1347514975598862336%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fnick-arama%2F2021%2F01%2F16%2F310863-n310863

          Sullivan records himself egging on protesters to violently enter the Capitol building on Jan. 6. And records himself talking Capitol police to allow them to remain. He was clearly a leader of the illegal entry. The same John Sullivan was arrested in Provo, Utah, in July 2020 for rioting. He helped organize the violent outburst on behalf of #BLM/Antifa, and was arrested when Antifa/#BLM rioters shot at passing motorists, hitting one.

          He was also videoed at a #BLM protest in August 2020 in Washington D.C. telling protesters to “rip Trump out” of the WH, to start a revolution because “we can’t wait for the next election,” etc. A leftist revolution, BTW. He isn’t a “card carrying” member of #BLM as that is a meaningless term. He formed a leftist revolutionary group called “Insurgence, U.S.A.” specifically to support #BLM.

          This isn’t all the evidence I have of #BLM/Antifa involvement in the Capitol incident on Jan. 6. Why present it all and deprive us of the entertainment value of you beclowning yourself?

          Arminius in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 3:18 pm

          I suppose the name Jade Sacker is unknown to you? None is so blind as one who will not see. She was arrested after her appearance with John Sullivan on CNN’s Anderson Cooper. She recorded herself triumphant after the fact that she and fellow #BLM/Antifa supporter got the video they wanted above all. Trump supporters rioting.

          MFM outlets are hiding behind the fig leaf that Sacker doesn’t work for them. This has merely to do with the definition of “employee.” She’s freelance, and her work has been used by CNN, NPR, etc. There’s a lot more evidence that she was a frequent MFM contributor than George Papadopoulos was ever a Trump campaign adviser. She was at least paid by the networks for her videos while Papadopoulos was never paid by the Trump campaign. But then I don’t expect intellectual consistency from the cognitively dissident.

          But you keep telling yourself that there’s no such thing as a false flag operation (Poles who know their history look at you, then over at historical events of 1939, then back at you in stunned amazement) and that there’s no evidence any #BLM/Antifa/Leftist involvement in the Capitol riots.

          I’ll just keep dribbling the evidence out, mark311.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 3:56 pm

          @Mac45

          Funny really I think the same of you, never the less always interested reading what you have to say.

          I’m not clear if there is any evidence at all other than one guy being antifa. So far there is mountains of evidence pointing the finger firmly at Trump supporters. It’s just not a tenable position to say it was some other party or parties. Feel free to send links to change my mind but I’ve seen virtually nothing to support your claim.

          Their was a mass of evidence within the Mueller report indicating Trumps guilt. The only reason he didn’t seek an indictment because of the DOJ policy of not going after a sitting president.

          I’ll grant you the other two examples are not black and white. The circumstances can be argued for sure.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 4:03 pm

          @arminius

          I’ve already referred to Sullivan as the one example of antifa present.

          As for Jade whoever she was an eye witness for CNN and doesn’t work for them. That’s been documented.

          Even if the above were true does that change the hundreds of Trump supporters arrested. No. It doesn’t. Face it you haven’t got any substantive evidence that it’s wasn’t overwhelmingly Trump supporters. Feel free to send me more links I’ll happily check them out.

          So far you have one person out of how many hundreds. Going to have to do much better than that.

          felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 4:08 pm

          Mark, we agree that someone dressed in MAGA gear at a Trump rally is most likely a Trump supporter. I think we also agree that this is a presumption that can be disproven.
          What we apparently do not agree on is that the events around the Capitol Building on January 6 were “at a Trump rally,” that event is quite distinct from the rally, it is distinct both due to time and place.
          I made no claims as to who the actual people support but provided reasons to doubt that they must have been Trump supporters or acted on Trump’s direction.

          I agree that the claim of election irregularities is serious and if people come to the conclusion that it has merit it can be dangerous. We have seen this play out during the Trump presidency that was marred by claims by Democrats and the media that the election was illegitimate, Russia stole the election for Trump, etc. Here I’d urge to use the same standard, if you have not spoken out against these claims, Democrat congresswoman Maxine Waters calling for constant harassment of anyone working for the Trump administration without any pushback by any important Democrat at all, you have forfeited the right to complain about Trump doubting – with good reason – the reliability of an election. I don’t think I’d be able to morally condemn a Democrat that truly thinks Trump is as bad or worse as Hitler (and Democrats have seriously made these kinds of claims again and again), who in order to prevent Trump from staying in power went ahead and filled out more than one ballot for their presidential candidate. But at worst Trump did have as little justification for his claims as the Democrats had for their claims the last four years. If they didn’t commit incitement to sedition or insurrection, surely Trump didn’t either.

          I think the hoaxes I mentioned have been addressed.

          It is the article of impeachment that quotes about 10 seconds of the 80 minutes speech, that in the context of that speech (let alone years of experience how actual Trump supporters react to Trump’s way of expressing concepts) have a drastically different meaning than the article desperately tries to insinuate. If that speech needs the context of the nebulous “things Trump did think, did not do, or did allude to during the time since the election” to come to the “incitement” verdict, it objectively cannot fairly be called inciting.

          As for your final claim, I question the justification of it. If, arguendo, we assume that each and every one of the arrested were indeed an ardent Trump supporter a few dozen is hardly a “many of them” given that around 30,000 were in Washington at the rally, and 74,000,000 voted for Trump. And, again, the results of a reliable investigation are not in yet.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 9:24 am

          @Felixrigidus

          “Mark, we agree that someone dressed in MAGA gear at a Trump rally is most likely a Trump supporter. I think we also agree that this is a presumption that can be disproven.”

          I follow the evidence if the evidence shows the involvement of other parties then they are equally as culpable. So yes I agree.

          “What we apparently do not agree on is that the events around the Capitol Building on January 6 were “at a Trump rally,” that event is quite distinct from the rally, it is distinct both due to time and place.
          I made no claims as to who the actual people support but provided reasons to doubt that they must have been Trump supporters or acted on Trump’s direction.”

          Yes I think this is an important distinction. Not all who attended the events of the Capitol were guilty, indeed I’m sure the majority of those in attendance were absolutely fine. The question is who entered the Capitol building ie crossed the barriers set up outside (irrespective of whether police officers removed them in places) that seems where the legal line is, as far as I can tell.

          “I agree that the claim of election irregularities is serious and if people come to the conclusion that it has merit it can be dangerous. We have seen this play out during the Trump presidency that was marred by claims by Democrats and the media that the election was illegitimate, Russia stole the election for Trump, etc. Here I’d urge to use the same standard, if you have not spoken out against these claims, Democrat congresswoman Maxine Waters calling for constant harassment of anyone working for the Trump administration without any pushback by any important Democrat at all, you have forfeited the right to complain about Trump doubting – with good reason – the reliability of an election. I don’t think I’d be able to morally condemn a Democrat that truly thinks Trump is as bad or worse as Hitler (and Democrats have seriously made these kinds of claims again and again), who in order to prevent Trump from staying in power went ahead and filled out more than one ballot for their presidential candidate. But at worst Trump did have as little justification for his claims as the Democrats had for their claims the last four years. If they didn’t commit incitement to sedition or insurrection, surely Trump didn’t either.”

          This needs a little unpacking.

          I think first of all the harassment of officials etc was unjustified so yes I condemn that as a general statement.

          I would say however that only a minority of Democrats challenged the election. The broader point about Russian interreference has been substantiated but that didn’t change the election result there was no way of undoing the result legally. This is expressed by Hilary handing over power as normal to Trump. There is a stark contrast between the behaviours of the two.

          I agree calling Trump a Hitler like character is stupid. There is a point lost within the use of that word, that Trump through his demagoguery has been damaging and continues to be damaging to democracy.

          I think the hoaxes I mentioned have been addressed.

          Im not getting into the above, thats a debate for another time

          “It is the article of impeachment that quotes about 10 seconds of the 80 minutes speech, that in the context of that speech (let alone years of experience how actual Trump supporters react to Trump’s way of expressing concepts) have a drastically different meaning than the article desperately tries to insinuate. If that speech needs the context of the nebulous “things Trump did think, did not do, or did allude to during the time since the election” to come to the “incitement” verdict, it objectively cannot fairly be called inciting.”

          An interesting point about Trump supporters and how they would objectively would react. Thats your opinion whihc given that a number of Trump supporters entered the Capitol building is demonstrably wrong. The concept here is incitement ie does the words used constitute a provocation of some other party to do something illegal. Would these Trump supporters have gathered at the Capitol were it not for Trump, were it not for Trumps actions and speeches would the Trump supporters feel aggrieved, were it not for Trumps consistent line that the election was stolen would Trump supporters feel like they should do something illegal. I think that question is difficult to answer and depends on the standard of evidence you use. From a criminal point of view probably not, from a balance of probability perspective id be saying yes. In other words a criminal charge would be deeply inappropriate but a more modest civil remedy might be ie impeachment. Words matter and civil discourse should be treated with respect. Throwing out lies and inflamming people has consequences and that cannot be treated lightly no matter what political badge you wear.

          As for your final claim, I question the justification of it. If, arguendo, we assume that each and every one of the arrested were indeed an ardent Trump supporter a few dozen is hardly a “many of them” given that around 30,000 were in Washington at the rally, and 74,000,000 voted for Trump. And, again, the results of a reliable investigation are not in yet.

          I see your point here, perhaps i should adjust my statement to say many of those at the Capitol building and inside its grounds. Im not sure how many that would be but an estimated few thousand in and around the Capitol (i wont hazard a guess on the numbers who entered)

          Arminius in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 12:10 pm

          “@arminius

          I’ve already referred to Sullivan as the one example of antifa present.

          As for Jade whoever she was an eye witness for CNN and doesn’t work for them. That’s been documented.”

          This is truly pathetic; it’s a complete non sequitur. I never wrote Jade “whoever she is” Sacker worked for CNN, nor does it matter. I wrote she is an Antifa/#BLM sympathizer and a freelancer whose videos have been widely used by MFM outlets. Her own video shows that she conspired with John Sullivan to incite the riot.

          Of course, they are “disappearing” her work down the memory hole in an effort, no doubt, to help leftist trolls like you in your propaganda efforts. When their web sites are scrubbed they, like you, will pretend not even to have ever known her.

          Thank you for responding as you did. You have your leftist troll script, and your script tells you to use her employment status with CNN as a red herring no matter how non-responsive that claim is to what is actually said. And to play down who she is which is in fact more important than her employment status.

          But no matter how absurd your script, you stick to it.

        JLSpeidel in reply to Grrr8 American. | February 1, 2021 at 11:10 am

        Agreed. I saw the behind the scenes videos of pre-rally. Trump was in the tent with the other speakers, Don Jr., Kimberly etc.. He delayed HIS speech only. I firmly believe that President Trump knew what was planned and adjusted his actions accordingly.

      Connivin Caniff in reply to JusticeDelivered. | January 31, 2021 at 9:56 pm

      Dear Justice Delivered: I was thinking about your handle: When will the D’Rat Cabal of Scoundrels be generally apparent to, and reviled by, all of the American people, thereby enabling us to have “Justice Delivered”? May this Great Country live up to your name!

Totally off topic but I just heard that California may be seeing droughts again. Almost to the day, the droughts stopped once Trump was in office and yet now he is gone they are supposed to be coming back. I wonder if God is trying to tell us something about his opinions about the Anti-God devotees being back in back in the White House. This BS about Trump inciting violence when it was planned by the Leftists before he ever spoke that day is BS. We need to stop supporting any of the DNC propagandists no more $ for liars.

It never was going to lead to President Trump, but impeachment is a political game not a real trial. Thankfully 45 Republican Senators figured this out. As for the perps,do pray whoever they are they are caught, but don’t trust the DOJ so it better be iron clad evidence.

    MattMusson in reply to Skip. | February 1, 2021 at 11:01 am

    When President Trump presents a rebuttal, he will be presenting to the American people watching the proceedings. Congress will already have made up their minds.

If D’s (including Biden) really believe Trump incited a riot, they should have him prosecuted by Biden’s DOJ, right? He’s no longer President, no longer immune for prosecution. Ford pardoned Nixon so he would not be prosecuted for Watergate crimes committed as President, right? Put up real criminal charges in a real court or shut up.

    Pettifogger in reply to jlronning. | January 31, 2021 at 4:54 pm

    Because what Trump is guilty of in their minds is being a Republican, being Trump, and fighting back. None of those are yet criminal offenses, but to Democrats, they are unforgiveable.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to jlronning. | January 31, 2021 at 6:19 pm

    Don’t give them and ideas, we all saw what they did with Russia Gate.

    See Daniel Greenfield’s article a week ago or so on Jug Ears inciting riots and assaults, much more detail his words led to those criminal actions.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to jlronning. | February 1, 2021 at 8:22 am

    If D’s (including Biden) really believe Trump incited a riot, they should have him prosecuted by Biden’s DOJ, right?

    But if the Biden regime DOJ were to indict and take Trump to court then they’d have to give him an opportunity to defend himself in an open court. And then there’s that whole pesky “discovery” thing the democrats would have to deal with. You know, the whole who knew what when and why did the Capitol police seemingly allow the “insurrectionists” access to the Capitol building.

    Oh no, they couldn’t do that. So they’ll press ahead with their kangaroo court where Trump has virtually no way to defend himself and where the democrats can selectively introduce the evidence they want and ignore the rest.

    Milhouse in reply to jlronning. | February 1, 2021 at 10:53 pm

    He can’t be prosecuted for it, because everything he said was protected by the first amendment. But that doesn’t prevent impeachment. Public officials can be impeached and removed for constitutionally protected behavior that Congress disapproves of.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | February 2, 2021 at 5:11 pm

      Only because the Constitution is meaningless to the hyper-partisan leftists. “High Crimes and Misdemeanors;” what are those? To the left it means imagining you have a Constitutional right to free speech.

      Off with Trump’s head.

How about playing the video of the Capitol Police escorting the protesters into the House Chamber – or other videos of Capitol Police standing down from stopping vandalism while MAGA supporters beg them to help, and MAGA supporters trying to stop the window breakers … Or the videos show the Capitol Police opening the doors to the Capitol and letting the protesters right in. Sorry – not insurrection – instead a false flag operation with the assistance of Cap Police.

    If this goes before a DC jury, the Lord Jesus Christ could testify for the defense and they all will still be found guilty

    JLSpeidel in reply to steve_gosney. | February 1, 2021 at 11:13 am

    From what I understand, people were welcomed in on one side of the building. The other side was the siege. I need an autist to put together a 360 video of that day. If we can see where each breach/stroll inside came from, we can see who really did it.

    mark311 in reply to steve_gosney. | February 1, 2021 at 4:06 pm

    I think the argument there is once the breach tool place the police acted in self preservation. Attempting to counter the rioters/protestors would likely have resulted in more violence

      Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 10:56 pm

      Even so, those who entered after they opened the barriers and let them in, and engaged in no violence or vandalism while there, were not doing anything wrong.

      I have not seen evidence that Trump supporters engaged in violence or vandalism.

      As for those who knowingly trespassed or committed violence, I’m fine with prosecuting them only after everyone who participated in the riots at the Trump inauguration, and in the BLM riots, even merely by trespassing on some business’s property, have been prosecuted. Until that happens the US Attorney has no moral right to prosecute these people, even the violent ones.

        mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | February 2, 2021 at 8:57 am

        Plenty of BLM protestors were arrested after the events that took place, Trump after all was the law and order candidate. If there was a lack of evidence of wrong doing thus preventing prosecution what exactly is it you expect to happen? Creating an impossible standard for justice isnt a solution, absolving someone of there crimes because some other individual(s) werent prosecuted isnt a viable moral position is it. The sensible moral standard is to apply the law fairly and neutrally to all; thats what should happen. Some will get away with it and some wont thats just life.

        AS for examples of people doing things wrong well, i think so far the charge sheet reads like this typically: obstruction of an official proceeding; entering and remaining in a restricted building; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building; violent entry and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building; and demonstrating in a Capitol building.

        Clearly there will be debate on the scope of the charges.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 2:41 pm

          Plenty of BLM protestors were arrested after the events that took place,

          And all had their charges dismissed. As far as I know not one person paid any penalty for the Trump inauguration riots, which were much worse than anything that happened on Jan 6. Or for any of the BLM riots or the antifa riots, all of which were worse than Jan 6.

          Trump after all was the law and order candidate.

          So? What role do you think Trump played in any prosecution?

          If there was a lack of evidence of wrong doing thus preventing prosecution what exactly is it you expect to happen?

          There was no lack of evidence. Charges were dismissed because prosecutors sympathized with the rioters and for no other reason.

          absolving someone of there crimes because some other individual(s) werent prosecuted isnt a viable moral position is it.

          It absolutely is. As you yourself wrote, “The sensible moral standard is to apply the law fairly and neutrally to all”; that means if you don’t prosecute all those other rioters because they were on your side, you have no right to prosecute these ones just because they’re on ours.

          obstruction of an official proceeding; entering and remaining in a restricted building; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building; violent entry and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building; and demonstrating in a Capitol building.

          All of which are less than or equivalent to what the rioters who were not charged did. There’s nothing special about the Capitol, that makes trespassing there, or vandalism there, worse than the same things in someone’s business. On the contrary, it’s the people’s house, so they have more right to be there than on someone’s private property.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 2:42 pm

          Oops, I messed up the quotes, but you can see how they’re supposed to go.

        mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | February 2, 2021 at 9:01 am

        I should add thats not an exhaustive list of the crimes listed just seemly typical at this stage. There are thefts, and criminal damage charges as well as assault type charges.

Liz Cheney and Jamie Herrera-Butt-head hardest hit.

I hope to hell Herrera-Buetler get’s primaried.

This is beginning(?) to sound very much like the video that incited the attack on our diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Susan Rice is still around, isn’t she?

Will the impeachment be a show trial with lots of speeches and blustering? I’m only getting more resolute.

…and who killed Ashli Babbit??
What caused the death of the Capitol police officer?

Does anyone care?

    JusticeDelivered in reply to NJ observer. | January 31, 2021 at 6:28 pm

    I bet that the BLM guy which BLM claims is not a member, did or said something to cause the shooting. I also think thate he and his associates intentionaly went to what was a peaceful protest to cause trouble.

While I’m at it, who killed Seth Rich? Can’t find what you’re not looking for.

Facts won’t sway the 3 ugly stepsisters, Romney, Collins and murkowski.

Mitt and Thu-than have been practicing their 2-minute 10-minute hate speeches since Nov 3

Impeachable? Nope. Irresponsible? Yep.

Look, kids, as an Eastern WA State resident who’s been thoroughly appalled by the rioting in Seattle, Portland, and several cities in California, I recognize incitement when I see it. Trump’s rhetoric prior to January 6th was bad stuff.

I agreed with many of his policies, but the man’s “leadership” style was abysmal. It’s no defense to point to his opposition, no matter how execrable.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to RandomCrank. | January 31, 2021 at 6:42 pm

    Crank sums it up. There was nothing in Trump’s comments suggesting violence, and there was NOTHING wrong with calling for people to protest.

    Waht is wrong are scum calling themselves Progressive when they really are anti demoncracy schemers trying to undermine America.

      Telling your supporters the election was stolen over and over again. Fighting like hell etc. His rhetoric inflamed the mob. Adding in the odd word about peace and happness isn’t going to dampen them. Hell some of the arrested supporters are pretty explicit in saying that was Trumps clear intention.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to RandomCrank. | January 31, 2021 at 8:08 pm

    Yes, I think Trump failed to realize his style might have worked in the private sector but is a no-go in the public one. As pertains to the latter, the powers-that-be remain, president come and go.

    Whatever one’s motivation spitting in their eye can go on only so long and then comes the end. Major disappointment to me Trump didn’t realize a second term was unlikely as the rate he was going. Whatever one’s take on the election, they handed him his hat and ushered him out the door.

    alaskabob in reply to RandomCrank. | February 1, 2021 at 1:40 am

    Ah… “Damning with faint praise”… In a party of platitudes instead of progress Trump’s style was what the voters wanted and the nation needed . Substance still prevailed though. Now we have a prez with no style and no substance signing EOs because someone off camera is ordering him to do it.

    As a sad aside Ted Cruz has gone mittens and sipped the Kool-Aid against Trump. The only reason I can see is donor money if he goes with the GOPe mantra. Lyin Ted reappears.

    JLSpeidel in reply to RandomCrank. | February 1, 2021 at 11:20 am

    As a FORMER Cheney, WA resident, I disagree. We tried to be polite with the TEA party. They didn’t listen. We needed someone to cut thru the crap media. His leadership style didn’t seem to affect his foreign policy. When the people getting rich off the backs of American squawk, I tend to think that is good.
    I have family in Spokane. You guys need to step up and take back your state government.

    Trump’s Twitter feed set the news cycle to what he wanted. He would make a statement, MSM would freak out. A few days later, he is shown to be correct. Just about every time. Style over substance doesn’t work in the real world.

Those “pipe bombs” are probably non-functional owing to the mechanical kitchen timer that does not have switch contacts.
Every good anarchist knows that if you detonate a pipe bomb from one end, all that happens is the cap gets blown off one end and just goes “pop”.
To be truly effective, it needs to be deatonated from the middle so the entire charge is utilized.
Damn rookies!

DieJustAsHappy | January 31, 2021 at 6:12 pm

It seems the case is not the only thing crumbling. Trump’s defense team is as well.

It is being reported five lawyers have, by “mutual agreement,” left Trump with but nine days before thr trial is to begin. Reports are Trump wants to focus on the election problems while the team was about the unconstitutionality of the trial.

Not good …

With my tin-foil hat firmly on my head, there is another reason the Dems could be rushing to impeach Trump now.

It’s not about 2024.

It’s to prevent him from resuming the presidency should election fraud be proven and the swing states flip back to Trump. I’ve read here and there that 30+ cases are still pending, AZ is pressing for forensic audits, etc. Sooner or later, one of the swing states will flip, or things will get too hot for someone who was involved and they’ll spill the beans. The Dems have got to be sweating the possibility of being exposed somewhere because the scale of fraud was so big and involved so many. When will the lid get blown off?

All that in addition to Biden’s dropping poll numbers and buyer’s remorse building after just 11 days in office, Dems could be trying to short circuit what they fear is inevitable: exposure and the potential for election nullification.

/tin foil hat off

    randian in reply to MrE. | February 1, 2021 at 12:27 am

    When will the lid get blown off?

    Why would they care? They aren’t exactly hiding their contempt for the American people now. Besides, the Federal courts will take care of it for them, with but two words: “standing” and “laches”. Nobody has standing to sue, and even if they did they waited too long (that is, after the inauguration).

    DaveGinOly in reply to MrE. | February 1, 2021 at 1:09 am

    Why bother to prove fraud when the record is plain – the electors from the contested states weren’t seated as the Constitution requires. This means their electoral votes weren’t available for any candidate and that there was no winner in the election.

    The Biden* administration is an unconstitutional, unlawful travesty, bordering on an abomination (give it time).

    MarkS in reply to MrE. | February 1, 2021 at 5:28 am

    Hah! No entity, being Court or Congress is gonna flip the election.

    JLSpeidel in reply to MrE. | February 1, 2021 at 11:24 am

    Sort of like what’s going on in Myramar? I had to order more tin foil myself…

      Make sure it’s Reynold’s brand not the thin supermarket stuff.

      Another late night tin-foil-hat thought – and IANAL – but where it would seem Trump’s “standing” is that he was directly robbed of the presidency by fraud, but IF they impeach him and he can no longer hold office, wouldn’t that nullify his “standing” to continue the election lawsuits as he’s no longer allowed the obvious “relief” such a suit might bring? His impeachment would seem to render all remaining election suits/disputes moot. Whether “legal” or not, I’m sure some sheister could make an baffling argument of that.

      /tin-foil-hat off – oh hell – I may as well leave it on – life in 2021 is better with it on.

    Milhouse in reply to MrE. | February 1, 2021 at 11:04 pm

    It’s to prevent him from resuming the presidency should election fraud be proven and the swing states flip back to Trump.

    That can’t happen. Even if he can prove enough fraud that he should have been elected president, he wasn’t. The electors voted on Dec 14, and they didn’t vote for him. There is no court that can reverse that. His Fraudulence is president now, no matter how he got there, and removing him will only put the whore in his place.

    Milhouse in reply to MrE. | February 1, 2021 at 11:05 pm

    Also, no matter what they may think, conviction cannot prevent him from being elected again. It can only bar some future president from appointing him to some office.

Obviously, Trump incited violence by first not allowing Hillary Clinton her rightful place in history, and then by running again in an attempt to prevent Kamala Harris from succeeding to the Presidency.

I’m not sure how the pre meditated actions of a few undermines the ‘unmeditated’ actions of the many. Pretty illogical. Besides there is a continuum of provocation from Trump.

    felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 10:57 am

    I’m not sure how the premeditated actions of a few

    You mean the planned and executed attack on the Capitol by “a few” people?

    undermines the ‘un-meditated’ actions of the many.

    And yet, the question is what the one person impeached for “inciting” “insurrection” did. It seems to be quite a feat to incite an action that was planned ahead days, weeks or months before the “incitement,” especially given that those “incited” were not even in a position to perceive the “incitement.”

    Besides there is a continuum of provocation from Trump.

    In other words “he did incite the attempt to violently overthrow the government either by giving a speech explicitly calling for peaceful action or by doing something we do not care to specify?”
    And why not, after all, if the crime is nebulous how can you expect the description of the actions alleged to fit the bill to be clear and precise?

    Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 11:06 pm

    The “unmeditated actions of the many” were not violent and not an “insurrection”.

Bucky Barkingham | February 1, 2021 at 7:11 am

If Manchin and Sinema even think about voting with the Roll Over Party on the Trump impeachment Chuckie Schumer will use his death stare to pull them back in line.

Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

e pluribus unum | February 1, 2021 at 8:29 am

This is the “Delorean, Back-to-the-Future” insurrection.
Those who stormed the Capitol, we have to believe, were listening to Trump’s speech, hopped in their Delorean and went back in time a few months to plan an attack, time-travelled to Jan. 5, 2021 to plant the pipe bombs, then time-traveled forward to hear Trump’s speech to become “incited”. They then had to hop into the Delorean and go back an hour so they can be at the Capitol for 12:45 to storm it before Trump finished his speech.
I would investigate Doc Brown or Michael J. Fox.

Now maybe they just used part of one but, That is a 1 hour dial from an egg timer on those “pipe bombs”. Probably don’t see them around much any more but if that is what they have for time delay, the bombs could only have been set to detonate no longer than 1 hour after they were set. Hardly a diversion to pull cops away from the Capitol.

Stacey Matthews: Not long after the Capitol riots, the evidence was already starting to pile up that the Capitol breaching was likely a preplanned attack rather than a spontaneous one “incited” by President Trump during the speech he gave that day.

The incitement was ongoing since even before the election:

Article of Impeachment, 2021: In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials.

Trump had primed the explosive, then lit the fuse. “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

    mark311 in reply to Zachriel. | February 1, 2021 at 10:13 am

    Oh Zachriel how could you say such things, he may have lit the fuse but he asked them to do it peacefully. Clearly fighting like hell in a country you don’t have an say in because of a stolen election means you should write and complain to your representative. Couldn’t be plainer /s

      healthguyfsu in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 11:44 am

      Zach was a known troll while you were still in your dirty troll diapers. You playing with the other troll only outs the two of you.

      As for the incitement, if what Trump said can be construed as figurative incitement then what Mad Max, Corey Booker (I am Spartacus), and your golden girl Kamala of the Slaver tribe is also incitement. You realize that this is exactly how the Soviets used kangaroo lawfare to quell dissent, right? You’re taking a page right out of their playbook.

        mark311 in reply to healthguyfsu. | February 1, 2021 at 1:41 pm

        Your going to have to be specific .. what violent events have been incited by those individuals

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 5:26 pm

          Physical attacks and confrontations on US senators, cabinet members, conservative commentators. The examples are numerous. To deny that is the height of disingenuousness. Republican members being gunned down at a baseball practice, Rand Paul being attacked in his front yard, and then physically accosted by a mob walking in DC with his wife, numerous Trump administration officials being physically accosted in restaurants, same happening to Republican members of congress, Tucker Carlson’s house being attacked by a violent mob that pounded on his front with his family inside while the mob extorted violence to them, peaceful Trump supporters at rallies being beaten up, pelted with eggs, and even shot an killed walking down the street. We all saw it. It has all been reported. So have all the calls for violence from Democrats. Obama instructing his followers to “Get into their face,” and to bring a gun to a fight, and deplorable comments from both Eric holder and Lorretta Lynch, and Maxine Waters, the constant comparison of Republicans to Nazis and assertion they are racists. But Trump incites violence because he notes that on election night you could watch TV and see votes switch from Trump to Biden. In numerous states, the vote count declined. A phantom watermain break in Fulton County, GA that supposedly forces the end of counting and that sends everyone home in the middle of the night, except for a small cadre of election workers who remained behind and then, after everyone else has departed, haul out boxes of ballots hidden under tables and start counting them…. No, all the above are lies. No one saw any of that. Everyone is insane.

          Those comments by Democrats are much more directly incendiary against both Trump and Republicans than anything Trump has done or said. And, no, all those election irregularities have not been fully and satisfactorily investigated and explained. To claim otherwise is blatantly dishonest.

          A humble proposal – have a true bipartisan examination of the election. One that is open and transparent. One that does impede, obfuscate, and hide things in darkness, or throws away allegation blithely. Let a Republican lead it. Give it subpoena power. If Biden wanted to unite, he could male this happen. If the Democrats have nothing to hide, and it was all on the up and up, then why not?

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 8:46 am

          @Brave Sir Robbin

          First of all I’ve always condemned violent actions no matter who carries them out. If its shown to be Anti-Fa or Joe Blogs or whoever doesnt matter it isnt acceptable.

          Second the point I was making was with reference to inciting violence so examples of spontaneous twatery isnt really relevant given that if they broke laws id happily see them prosecuted no matter who they are.

          Third Obama’s quote lacks context as I understand it is was in the context of a fundraising gathering and being used as a hip metaphor. It appears to be a reference to the film ‘untouchables’ as such i’m not really persuaded that its an example of incitement given the context.

          Your point about election fraud, well we have robustly discussed this before so i think its a case of agreeing to disagree.

          Your final point, well i totally agree with the premise; ive actually stated thats my preference in a number of previous posts. Im not interested in voter fraud per se as its pretty indisputable that it didnt happen but the idea is good from my view point to show definitively that fraud didnt happen; thus improving voter confidence, and providing recommendations as necessary for reform. If the investigation does take place it should ensure that it has a robust analysis of any proposed recommendations. So yes I agree.

          I have missed out some of the detail regarding the various cited incidents of violence as I state in my first point i dont care much for violence from anyone so i dont consider it necessary to dwell to much on the specifics of each case you cite.

        mark311 in reply to healthguyfsu. | February 1, 2021 at 1:45 pm

        As for your comments about zachriel I’m not clear that they are a troll. All they have done is point out a pretty serious flaw in the argument presented within the article. A flaw that undermines the entire basis of the article.

        mark311 in reply to healthguyfsu. | February 1, 2021 at 1:56 pm

        Your reference to Soviets is flawed, they would arrest you, have a pretend trial and then send you to the gulag. On the basis that you wronged the state, in this case the executive power in Trumps hands has wronged another branch of government.

    felixrigidus in reply to Zachriel. | February 1, 2021 at 11:13 am

    You mean the speech where about a quarter of an hour in Trump said

    I know that everyone here will soon be
    marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and
    patriotically make your voices heard.

    and about an hour after that

    Our brightest days are before us, our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were. And again, most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, “I want to thank you very much,” and they go off to some other life, but I said, “Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.

    Or do you assume that anytime a politician says he fights something he wants to describe his actual physical almost gladiatorial actions? I assume fighting the pandemic must be quite violent in your mind?

      mark311 in reply to felixrigidus. | February 1, 2021 at 1:54 pm

      Context is everything, a word or phrases value and meaning is derived from its context. The context here is a man who has claimed falsely that he had an election stolen for months saying in every forum available to him that he has had his presidency stolen. Further not accepting the result and the legitimate presidency of Biden. Attempting to interfere with the transition process by not co operating with the incoming administration and then having a rally protesting against the legitimate incoming administration down the road. That’s context gives a different light to talking of fighting like hell. His behaviour has consistently been inflammatory.

        felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 4:50 pm

        Yes, context provides a framework for interpretation. However, that is not what you propose to do.

        One does not simply ignore the actual context, to understand the meaning of a text. To replace it with a highly partisan petitio principii is certainly not a best practice of interpretation either.

        The article of impeachment is methodically deeply flawed. It quotes two snippets of the speech, not even whole sentences, which are separated by almost an hour, and substitutes some wildly partisan claims while claiming to provide “context.” That “relevant” context seems to be best summed up as “Orange Man Bad!” That, however, does not a context make.

    Mac45 in reply to Zachriel. | February 1, 2021 at 2:16 pm

    So, if the basis for the latest Articles of Impeachment were written months before the Capitol, Incursion, this simply bolsters the potential that it was a set up by progressive interests. We saw the same thing with the Comey firing. Remember? The anti-Trump forces wanted to appoint a special council to investigate Trump. For that they needed a potential criminal act. The fact that some members of the Trump Campaign may have worked with a foreign power to develop opposition research in a campaign was not a criminal act. But, obstruction of justice is. So, when Trump would not fire Comey, Rosenstein was brought in to convince his that he could and should fire Comey. Once Trump did that, McCabe opened a criminal obstruction of justice investigation against him, the next day. The Rosenstein, who was in charge of all things Trump-Russia related, as Sessions had recused himself, appoints Mueller as a special council to investigate the obstruction of justice complaint, and anything else that he wanted to investigate. Now, remember this as it is critical, Rosenstein wrote the justification for the Comey firing to begin with. He is therefore unlikely to discount his own research and reasoning and indulge a complaint of obstruction of justice based upon that action. Yet, he did just that. Why? The most credible explanation is that the whole point of getting Trump to fire Comey was open the door for the appointment of a special council.

    So, if they did this once, why not dust off the old play book and build another frame?

      mark311 in reply to Mac45. | February 1, 2021 at 4:16 pm

      An interesting set of theories. All of which have no evidence. Until you present something to tie it together you don’t really have anything at all just baseless conjecture.

        Mac45 in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 6:29 pm

        Of course this is just conjecture. Just as it is conjecture than anything that Trump said incited anyone to violence, let alone sparked the Capitol Incursion.

        The bottom line is that there was any intent, on Trump’s part, to incite any violence. From the Articles of Impeachment, we can make make two suppositions. One is that the House attempted to build a case for insurrection after January 06. The other is that they were attempting to build one prior to Jan. 06. There is historical support for the second, as I laid out above. So, pick your poison.

        By the way? Why is questioning the validity of the 2020 Presidential Election so dangerous? Nothing like this happened in previous contested elections, including the 2016 election. The entire federal government, as well as several state governments, have circled the wagons and refused to acknowledge that any evidence exists which creates even reasonable suspicion of election law violations or fraud. If there is no significant fraud, why the huge push to criminalize any suggestion that there is?

          Mac45: Just as it is conjecture than anything that Trump said incited anyone to violence[

          It’s not conjecture, but explicit statements by those who stormed the Capitol.

        Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 11:20 pm

        An interesting set of theories. All of which have no evidence. Until you present something to tie it together you don’t really have anything at all just baseless conjecture.

        Got another explanation for why a special counsel was appointed? We already know, because Comey admitted it, that his purpose in giving his friend his notes (probably illegally) was to achieve precisely this result. And we know that the only reason he briefed Trump on the Steele document (which he already knew to be fake) was so he could leak to the press that the briefing had taken place, which would lend the document false credibility. So explain Rosenstein’s actions in some reasonable way that doesn’t make him part of the conspiracy.

I see these comments where it is being said that Trump made false accusations of voter fraud. Well these cases of alleged fraud have neither been shown to be true or false. We have been denied our day in court. A Virginia court has ruled that the change in the mail-in ballot rules allowing late ballots, no post mark etc as illegal. Conveniently after Biden has been sworn in. Remember they called Virginia for Biden when Trump had over 60% of the votes. More will follow and that is why there is a rush to impeach. Won’t be much of an impeachment about him lying about fraud to cause a riot if the fraud has been shown to be true. We know of other fraud in one county in Wisconsin where the SOS failed to get it sealed. They are still fighting in 21 different cases.
I just saw where Ted Cruz said it was false to call fraud but, we also know that Ted is being threatened with the 14th amendment for challenging the Electors. Makes you wonder how he could challenge and call Trump a liar.

    mark311 in reply to Macko. | February 1, 2021 at 4:25 pm

    Trumps legal team had a number of opportunities to present to court. The Brann judgement makes interesting reading. You’ll find if you read the background to it that they made many allegations in public and then presented practically nothing to the judge. The main reason being they didn’t have any evidence. Another example was Antrim county which is still being litigated. A number of expert reports were produced which are now publicly available and have been used elsewhere. These have been shredded. The fact is the Trump case for election fraud is a series of baseless lies with no evidence base. Drilling into the detail of each part of the ‘evidence’reveals it to be deeply flawed. This is why the court system has given such short responses in many cases to the challanged because it wasted everybodies time. Not even Trump appointed judges think there was a case.

      Macko in reply to mark311. | February 1, 2021 at 5:18 pm

      You’ve named a couple of instances that may be true but, we still have 21 cases out there and like what happened in Virginia with the change in rules for Mail-in ballots could happen in any one or all of the 21 cases. The Penn courts claimed the changes weren’t challenged soon enough yet prior to the election there was no fraud. It also shows that those rule changes were made well in advance of the Wuhan Flu.

    Macko: A Virginia court has ruled that the change in the mail-in ballot rules allowing late ballots, no post mark etc as illegal. Conveniently after Biden has been sworn in.

    The ruling did not change the results as the ballots were not counted due to a previous injunction.

      Macko in reply to Zachriel. | February 2, 2021 at 9:24 am

      I do not know if those ballots were all put aside or counted. My point was that a Judge has ruled that the rules that allowed those those ballots were illegal and those same rules were allowed in other states

        Macko: I do not know if those ballots were all put aside or counted.

        https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-local-elections-state-elections-lawsuits-elections-7a1b578c8525432c9da4c5364826ea49

        Macko: My point was that a Judge has ruled that the rules that allowed those those ballots were illegal and those same rules were allowed in other states

        Huh? It was a ruling based on state law in a state court. Of course it doesn’t apply to other states which have different laws.

        You are pointing out where the system worked.

          Macko in reply to Zachriel. | February 2, 2021 at 2:04 pm

          No I don’t believe that it was a state law in Virginia anymore than the other states that allowed the same lack of rules to apply to their mail-in ballots. And no I am not trying to apply one State’s laws to another State. If some Judge waived ballot requirements that is not a law. Legislatures make laws, not Judges. What I intended to point out to you is that courts are ruling that no, a Judge cannot waive the rules and the same rules were waived in several states. Therefore, perhaps we will see these rulings in more states besides Virginia

          Macko: No I don’t believe that it was a state law in Virginia

          We provided a link concerning the ruling and the injunction. The ruling was by a Virginia Circuit Court judge who based his ruling on Virginia Code § 24.2-709.

          Macko: If some Judge waived ballot requirements that is not a law.

          You provided the example of Virginia, which did not support your claim.

Mark311, how can you dismiss claims that antifa was there in force, wearing Trump gear as is their normal modus operandi? Have you not seen Michael Yon’s eyewitness account of what he saw? If not, then you must watch it before making any more comments on this issue, because it would be dishonest to keep commenting without having seen it. You will surely not question Yon’s expertise on the subject.

    mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | February 2, 2021 at 8:19 am

    @Milhouse,

    Just watched the Michael Yon interview. I appreciate your point about the potential of Anti-Fa being there. However what Michael actually says is conjecture. There isn’t actually any evidence of Anti-Fa being there just the supposition that they dressed like Trump supporters and used tactics Michael Yon was familiar with. That is a basis for starting to investigate not to draw a conclusion. With the number of videos of the events it seems to me that the truth will out and clearly anyone present where there is an evidence trail should be investigated. If that includes Anti Fa then it’ll come out in the woodwork eventually.

    Even if the above is true does that legitimise the actions of those entering the building then the answer is still no. If someone asks you to commit a crime does that justify you committing that crime? All that does is make the one provoking you guilty as well.

    The above doesn’t change the fact that a number of known Trump supporters have entered the building and done some stupid things. All in the name of Trump.

    In summary I’m open minded but at present unconvinced of the presence of Anti Fa, and even if they were present there is mountains of evidence for Trump supports having entered the building and being stupid.

      Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 2:53 pm

      It’s not speculation. Yon was there and saw them with his own eyes, using the same tactics he saw used in Hong Kong. He saw people wearing Trump gear whom he could identify from their dress and behavior as antifa.

      My contention, until I see evidence to the contrary, is that all the violence and vandalism was done by infiltrators, and the genuine Trump supporters merely entered the building after the guards opened it for them. Those people did nothing wrong and should not be charged with anything. Trump supporters who did commit violence or vandalism (if any) should be charged, but only after all those who did the same or worse for causes you like have been charged, convicted, and punished.

“Fight like hell” is no more violent a term than “campaign”, which every politician openly uses without any hesitation. Why should Trump not have said it?

And marching on the Capitol is a time-honored American tradition, which hundreds of groups have done, and thousands of politicians have encouraged. Why should Trump have been different?

Even if you disagree with his belief that he was robbed, he clearly believes it, so how can you deny his right to say so?

    mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | February 2, 2021 at 8:21 am

    AS ive said before in previous posts, context is everything. Trump is the only modern president to deny the results before the outcome is even known. He has lied and peddled conspiracy theories consistently.

      Macko in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 9:27 am

      Once word got out about the changes that removed the safeguards from mail-in ballots, the whole country knew what was coming

      Arminius in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 12:34 pm

      Once again we see that to a leftist “lie” = “conflicts with my preferred narrative.”

      This is the Stalinist definition of what is truth vs. a lie.

      “Communism is good. The truth is good. Therefore, whatever advances the cause of communism is the truth even if it is objectively a lie.”

      Hence Stacey Abrams has been according to her own account the real, legitimate governor of Georgia and was only robbed of her victory due to minority voter suppression. Of course, minorities participated at a higher rate in 2018 than in previous elections. But since her claims advanced the cause of communism then it is the truth even though objectively a lie.

      “But whatever hinders the advancement of the cause of communism is a lie even if it is objectively the truth.”

      There is far more evidence of massive voter fraud in Georgia, to pick just that one state, than there ever was of voter suppression. Yet Stacey Abrams remains unprosecuted for her claims while Trump and everyone who looks at the evidence and agrees with him because now, all of a sudden, disputing an election result is treason.

      As an aside, it is amusing that the people calling Trump a liar also hold that there is no such thing as objective truth anyway. That’s why little Billy can be a girl today and use the girl’s restrooms and locker rooms, and next week can decide he’s a boy again and whatever the six year old kid claims must be accepted as truth the moment he claims it.

      Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 2, 2021 at 3:00 pm

      AS ive said before in previous posts, context is everything. Trump is the only modern president to deny the results before the outcome is even known. He has lied and peddled conspiracy theories consistently.

      Before the outcome was known how could he have “denied” it? He said there was fraud going on, which was true. He said wait for the results, and it was the Democrats who insisted that he concede before they were known! Something no Democrat has ever done. And he has not lied; he has said what he believes to be true. If some of those beliefs are unreasonable, blame the total silencing of all reasonable people willing to tell the truth. With them off the air, all he had to inform him were the nuts and lunatics, so he came away with an exaggerated and unrealistic view of the scale of the fraud which undoubtedly did exist, and of the amount of direct evidence available for it. Nobody has yet proven that he’s actually wrong, just as he has not proven that he’s right.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend