Democrats have a compelling case
- Thread starter middleview
- Start date
Dino
Russian Asset
Guess we'll see when and if any evidence is presented. Doubt they'll show the "peacefully and patriotically" line however. Undermines the entire case.
As I keep pointing out...Trump started stirring the pot with his first claims of a stolen election....
This guy was arrested Feb 4th....Where do you suppose he got the idea that the Electoral college votes could be decertified?
In the article, Fitzsimons is quoted as saying, “The speeches from the morning were overtly preaching the election was not over, there was a path to victory through decertification, there was a plan to delay the certification by the House and Senate and then state legislatures would convene and (certify) the right result.”
Maine man arrested by FBI in connection with Capitol riots
Kyle Fitzsimons, 37, of Lebanon was arrested without incident Thursday; he is also a person of interest for a suspicious package found in Portland on Jan. 23
www.newscentermaine.com
Sure, Bannon participated so he knows how Trump spent 2 months riling up his QAnon base to storm the Capitol. Remember, Bannon was caught stealing from Trump's gullible base at that time.
Heck, we know Trump was setting the stage to try and steal the election.....back in May when he started telling the lies about mail-in ballots. Of course, he said in the 2016 primary that he'd never accept election results.....if he wasn't the winner.
Heck, we know Trump was setting the stage to try and steal the election.....back in May when he started telling the lies about mail-in ballots. Of course, he said in the 2016 primary that he'd never accept election results.....if he wasn't the winner.
He also set the stage in 2020...saying there was no way he'd lose unless Biden cheated. He already knew he was losing....
Dino
Russian Asset
That makes absolutely no difference when you’re alleging the president incited a riot. He could have gotten that from any hack attorney appearing on cable or wherever. It doesn’t have an impact on this “case”As I keep pointing out...Trump started stirring the pot with his first claims of a stolen election....
This guy was arrested Feb 4th....Where do you suppose he got the idea that the Electoral college votes could be decertified?
In the article, Fitzsimons is quoted as saying, “The speeches from the morning were overtly preaching the election was not over, there was a path to victory through decertification, there was a plan to delay the certification by the House and Senate and then state legislatures would convene and (certify) the right result.”
Maine man arrested by FBI in connection with Capitol riots
Kyle Fitzsimons, 37, of Lebanon was arrested without incident Thursday; he is also a person of interest for a suspicious package found in Portland on Jan. 23
Boca
Governor
if Democrats implicate him as the key figure in the January 6 Capitol riot, in which a violent mob stormed the halls of Congress and five people were killed.
Whatever happened to proof beyond a shadow of doubt. Particularly since the FBI had evidence of a planned attack on the Capitol the week before. Not only had the evidence but knew who the plotters were, had their mug shots, knew where they lived, and where they were going to assemble at the Capitol.
I'd say Christopher Wray ought to be hauled before Congress and grilled about a dereliction of duty that led to the killing of 4 people..
EatTheRich
President
They also knew the aim of the plot ... to overturn Biden’s constitutional election victory and the majority that gave it to him, and install their own choice (Trump) in Biden’s place, as Trump directed. The FBI likely didn’t interfere because Trump told them not to.
Angus Young
Mayor
Compelling case? Laughable. First, let's address "fighting". Here is what Trump said about "fighting":
"If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight," Trump said. "You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are."
Using your logic, Trump was expecting elected Republicans to physically fight with Democrats. Your logic is nothing short of laughable.
Now let's talk about what Trump presumed what would happen:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech. "Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for [the] integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."
Hardly sounds like a call to violence.
Compelling case? Only to extreme partisans who are willing to ignore the evidence that doesn't fit their narrative.
www.newsweek.com
"If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight," Trump said. "You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are."
Using your logic, Trump was expecting elected Republicans to physically fight with Democrats. Your logic is nothing short of laughable.
Now let's talk about what Trump presumed what would happen:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech. "Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for [the] integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."
Hardly sounds like a call to violence.
Compelling case? Only to extreme partisans who are willing to ignore the evidence that doesn't fit their narrative.
Fact Check: Did Trump Say March 'Peacefully and Patriotically' to Capitol?
Following calls for impeachment, President Trump and his supporters maintain that the president's speech did not incite violence because he called for peaceful protests at the Capitol to disrupt the certification of the presidential election results.
www.newsweek.com
Bugsy McGurk
President
Do you think the Capitol building seizure/riot would have occurred if Trump had not organized the “rally” on January 6 and told his rabble to march on the Capitol?
Bugsy McGurk
President
Compelling case? Laughable. First, let's address "fighting". Here is what Trump said about "fighting":
"If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight," Trump said. "You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are."
Using your logic, Trump was expecting elected Republicans to physically fight with Democrats. Your logic is nothing short of laughable.
Now let's talk about what Trump presumed what would happen:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech. "Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for [the] integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."
Hardly sounds like a call to violence.
Compelling case? Only to extreme partisans who are willing to ignore the evidence that doesn't fit their narrative.
Fact Check: Did Trump Say March 'Peacefully and Patriotically' to Capitol?
Following calls for impeachment, President Trump and his supporters maintain that the president's speech did not incite violence because he called for peaceful protests at the Capitol to disrupt the certification of the presidential election results.
See my question above.
Angus Young
Mayor
I saw it. What of it?
Bugsy McGurk
President
Angus Young
Mayor
No. You're failing to see the point. The topic is Democrats' compelling case. Your question is laughable in context of an impeachment trial. Using your logic, we could blame the sun for coming up. I would encourage you to really think about it.
Good luck.
Bugsy McGurk
President
Your refusal to confront questions reveals your hackery. You don’t believe what you say. You know you can’t defend it. So dodge you must.
You can’t even put up a fight.
Angus Young
Mayor
Laughable logic. Do you really think they'll actually present it?
Bugsy McGurk
President
The most deplorable of the dodging wingers dodge questions and then have the audacity to ask their own questions.
Dino
Russian Asset
Yes. Didn’t you know the FBI found out this storming idea was pre-planned?
Addy
Stand up for the people!
Maybe Trump should take Bannon's advice on the the defense strategy... it would be a compelling case for sure if that happened.
Bannon's advice is not too well thought out. That's okay, Trump's lawyers should take it. 
.____________________________________________________
From your link.
snip------
Bannon, Trump's former chief White House strategist, said the legal team should shift the defense argument to the claims that Trump used to motivate the rioters, as well as bringing up his unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud and a stolen election.
"He is not going to be convicted, so we must address November. 3. And the best place to adjudicate this is the well of the U.S. Senate," Bannon said. "It has to be dramatic, it has to be big. It has to be the big lie versus the big steal."
But because Trump does not plan on testifying, it will be up to Castor and Schoen to raise those arguments.
Attorney Alan Dershowitz, who helped represent Trump during his first impeachment trial, told Politico that Bannon's suggestion would be a "serious mistake." Derschowitz, who declined to represent Trump again, argued that reintroducing claims of election fraud will drive away the votes he will need for acquittal.
"He loses senators if he starts going into a defense of his claims on the election or his defense of his speech [before the riot]," Dershowitz told Politico. "He's better off if he allows his lawyers to make constitutional arguments under the First Amendment and the limitations of the Senate to try anyone who is no longer in office."
