DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

He didn't get impeached because there was no case against him that wouldn't that set precedent against a lot of senior Democrats as well including Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi and especially Maxine Waters who went passed the line both Trump and other politicians tend to dance and explicitly called for political violence, twice.

Trump's speech literally called for people to patriotically a peacefully march and was still going at the time the capitol was 'stormed.'

In the meantime while this expensive distraction has been going on the Biden administration has signed more executive orders than Obama, Bush and Clinton combined, many of which are ill thought out and a complete odds with each other.

Biden is nothing more than a puppet but the people behind him pulling the strings are truly terrifying but to be honest impressively masterful in a machevellian way.

The Trump impeachment trial was a circus act, classic misdirection and nothing more.

America will return to war somewhere this year. They'll go back to bombing kids who just happened to be in the way.

Trump was the first president in decades not to start a war, just remember that when another evil dictator happens to emerge in the middle East and causes Team America to save the day by bombing the shit out of civillians.

But for now though Orange Man Bad, Senile Man Good I guess.

Now who wants some cake...

Trump is someone a lot of everyday people like and want. The establishment and media hate him because they can’t control him and that upsets them. They know hes the republicans best chance by far to win the next election and let’s be honest if the media didn’t have they own agenda and broadcast by far the most biased news reports I’ve ever seen trump would have one again.

Bottom line is trump is supported by a wide range of American citizens. It’s they country and they vote time people started to respect this, irrelevant of they personal beliefs.

He is also a person that many other people despise and don’t want - and there is the the problem. He (not the party) is decisive and has ‘built’ himself on being deliberately just that.

Maybe the main stream media issue with him is the same as the 80M + who didn’t vote for him - namely his self serving reason for power. Seems he only has an issue with the media that question him - and even Fox were thrown under the bus when they started to challenge him. That is incredibly dangerous.

Here is a man who on camera, audio or Twitter has openly mocked disabled people, make racists remarks, talked about groping woman, failed to condemned far right groups when a young woman was killed, spun lie after lie about the elevation (more on this later), turned on his own VP when he wouldn’t go against the constitution and in true mafia style, hired someone to do his dirty work for him so he could keep his own hands clean - problem is Rudy was stupid enough to leave a trail of audio to show exactly what they were up to.

Even the court that Trump loaded with his own people, threw his case out.

On the point about election lies, there is a worrying physiological propaganda that politicians like Trump peddle.

In 2016 when he thought Clinton was going to win the election (even after voting was closed) he kept talking up how the system was rigged and floored and that was the only reason he’d lose. When he then won, he never ever questioned this ‘rigged’ voting system again until the 2020 election when he spun the same narrative before, during and after the election. There was no issue with the swing states in 2016 that he took back for the republicans...but apparently in 2020 those states are ‘corrupt’ and ‘always have been’.

Funnily enough his ‘pal’ Farage did exactly the same thing with Brexit - on the night of the vote, saying if it was 52-48 remain the system was rigged against them and they would keep fighting. Yet only a matter of hours later, apparently the system was perfect and anyone questioning the result was bitter.

He was found guilty last night by a significant majority and even the leader of his own party said that he was guilt in a damning statement - That system that Trump apparently derides so much saved him from being convicted as it rightly requires a 2/3 majority to avoid impeachment being decided based on size of party.

Anybody that thinks that this billionaire business man who has shown little desire for philanthropy, any history of investing in these communities in the past or shared any evidence that he has even paid taxes is ‘in it for the little man’ has frankly been totally taken in by his propaganda and lies in exactly the way that he planned.

I’m afraid you’re missing the point. I’m not her to defend him or say he’s right or wrong. The fact is he lives in a free country and people are allowed to vote and this is what they wanted, people believe in what he stands for over there a break from the norm.

If we had an equivalent over here I believe they would challenge as well. But over here the establishment is more proof to keep out people who the public want if it doesn’t sit with they agenda.

Like I said before forget what he stands for a lot of free people in USA voted for him, we need to respect that he hasn’t cheated his way there anymore than Biden, who I actually think had a massive unfair advantage brainwashing people to vote for him. Funny how people forget how anti black he been when helping make laws.

He didn't get impeached because there was no case against him that wouldn't that set precedent against a lot of senior Democrats as well including Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi and especially Maxine Waters who went passed the line both Trump and other politicians tend to dance and explicitly called for political violence, twice.

Trump's speech literally called for people to patriotically a peacefully march and was still going at the time the capitol was 'stormed.'

In the meantime while this expensive distraction has been going on the Biden administration has signed more executive orders than Obama, Bush and Clinton combined, many of which are ill thought out and a complete odds with each other.

Biden is nothing more than a puppet but the people behind him pulling the strings are truly terrifying but to be honest impressively masterful in a machevellian way.

The Trump impeachment trial was a circus act, classic misdirection and nothing more.

America will return to war somewhere this year. They'll go back to bombing kids who just happened to be in the way.

Trump was the first president in decades not to start a war, just remember that when another evil dictator happens to emerge in the middle East and causes Team America to save the day by bombing the shit out of civillians.

But for now though Orange Man Bad, Senile Man Good I guess.

Now who wants some cake...

'Trump's speech literally called for people to patriotically a peacefully march and was still going at the time the capitol was 'stormed.'' Perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part.

'Biden administration has signed more executive orders than Obama, Bush and Clinton combined'.
A) Thats completely wrong, he's at around 1/10th of obamas alone (who had a similar amount to trump)
B) Why is that bad?
C) Which do you disagree with? Looking at the list you've got: racial equality, census, corona response, anti discrimination, ethics, climate change, and masks for the first 7.

'They'll go back to bombing kids who just happened to be in the way.
Trump was the first president in decades not to start a war'

Casually ignoring the huge increase in bombs dropped under him. In 8 years Clinton dropped 70,000 bombs and Obama dropped 100,000, in 3 years trump dropped 72,000. According to the UN, the US killed more civilians than taliban in 2019. I'm sure everyone in the middle East was sleeping safely when trump was in charge.

28B5F58B-CB71-4E61-AA0F-B183B7587ABE.jpeg

How big is your folder of memes and pictures for when Trump proves voter fraud and a rigged election and sends crooked Hilary and Sleepy Joe to a jail beyond the shiny new Mexican border wall? You could probably delete it if you need the hard drive space

E46465F8-8357-4BB9-A204-17366FF06847.jpeg

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

28B5F58B-CB71-4E61-AA0F-B183B7587ABE.jpeg

How big is your folder of memes and pictures for when Trump proves voter fraud and a rigged election and sends crooked Hilary and Sleepy Joe to a jail beyond the shiny new Mexican border wall? You could probably delete it if you need the hard drive space

E46465F8-8357-4BB9-A204-17366FF06847.jpeg

Do your 2 time election winner one.
Oh wait...

When are you Trump supporters going to move on? He lost. Get over it.

When are you Trump supporters going to move on? He lost. Get over it.

We have moved on, and also the US military have moved on, and also President Trump himself has moved on.

What was quite extraordinary was that the newly "elected" could not move on. I don't purpport to know the US consitition inside and out......but I have seen enough to suggest that his "impeachment" was unconstitutional.

Let me tell you this, it's one thing agreeing with law breakers when it does not affect you, but as it gets closer to your door you may start to ask more pertinent questions!

When are you Trump supporters going to move on? He lost. Get over it.

yes he lost . and the very first thing the Democratic party do is try to unite the population by attempting to impeach someone 70 odd million Americans had just voted for ....followed by failure to do so.. followed by more name calling... thats really leaving it go ..

Perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part.

Is playing a 'part enough' for impeachment on the ground of incitement or just more Orange Man Bad?

Let's look at some undeniable facts around the election:

Biden had 13Million more votes than Obama despite not really campaigning at all.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-popular-vote-record-barack-obama-us-presidential-election-donald-trump/
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/09/joe-bide ... tion-trump

Biden lost all but one bellwether county, something that has never happened in the history of US elections and 19 of these had called every election since 1980 - Trump won 18 of the 19
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/11/18/biden-win-ends-streak-for-us-election-bellwethers/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... unties-go/

Trump is the only sitting President since John Quincy Adams almost a hundred years ago to have increased his vote and not get re-elected
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

More people voted for Trump than any other sitting president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

Trump increased his vote amongst minority voters and historically whenever a republican does this they get re-elected.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-vote-rising-among-blacks-hispanics-despite-conventional-wisdom-ncna1245787

The undercard votes on Biden tickets were again at record lows compared not just to US elections but pretty much any free and fair election in the world.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/11/bidens-popular-vote-win-didnt-help-house-democrats/617211/

Biden only made grounds in the key states he needed to win
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/940689086/narrow-wins-in-these-key-states-powered-biden-to-the-presidency

The democrats took heavy losses in the house and senate across the board except in the swing states.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/15/934586955/house-democrats-dissect-what-went-wrong-and-how-to-rebound-from-losses

Mail-in voting which is open to widespread fraud was heavily used in a US election for the first time and it was pushed hard by the democrats.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26487418
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... n-analysis

Changes to voting regulations and legislations were introduced in key states shortly before the election
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/9-states-where-rules-voting-have-been-changed-or-challenged-n1026886

There isn't a single thing in the above list that is remotely questionable and looking at the above it is reasonable assertion to suggest the election could have been open to fraud. I'm not saying fraud happened, just that it could have and the above list of fully verifiable facts that statistically are all anomalous when combined would raise enough legitimate doubts to warrant an investigation to make sure the election was able to hold up to scrutiny.

This means Trump, as sitting president during the 2020 election, had a legal, constitutional and moral duty to question the veracity of the results fully within the remit of the US legal system on behalf of the 74 million people who voted for him to ensure that all votes were treated equally as per the 14th Amendment.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... ndment-xiv

Equally, incitement has a very distinct legal definition in the US: the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2102

Nothing he has said at any point was even close to incitement, and every move he made was not only made through the legal channels but technically it can be argued he was obligated to make as sitting President to uphold the constitution.

The whole impeachment was never ever going to hold water.

What I found interesting was how shite Trump's lawyers were, I get that they knew it never really mattered anyway, but with the publicity surrounding the impeachment, trial I'm surprised they didn't go to town on ripping the democrats to shreds. That plus the lack of pardon for Assange suggests a deal has been done for something, but I'm not sure what.

I can't begin to explain why the OP is so wrong but I will try...

Donald J Trump was technically found GUILTY of the charges laid against him by simple majority

What didn't occur was a SUFFICIENT majority (2 thirds) to make it count

I have watched events avidly until the early hours of the mornimg and there is an almost universal condemnation of Donald J Trump, including by the leaders of his own Party the Retrumplicans

That they 'bottled' it (some would simply say 'find a route out') is going to be something they have to wrestle with for the rest of their lives

The 'people' won't forgive them either. Seven people died because of his incitement and many more were injured and even more families will be ruined by the actions of the surrectionists who were drawn in by his lies

Donald J Trump, ironically, is a busted flush and will find real 'friends' hard to come by going forward

Shame on Donald J Trump, shame on the Republican Party (seven honest people apart) and shame on those who were stupid enough to put their hats on a narcissistic despot...!

Chris, I truly feel humbled by your obvious total knowledge of the US system and what is right and wrong thereof. As you are so aware please tell me where the US constitution can impeach a citizen. As soon as he was not in office there was no case to answer....FACT. The question therein in lies, is he still in office????

There is a narrative, admittedly by the MSM, to which you know I dispute, that Donald J Trump is the anti-christ. All that comes out from him is obviously evil. It got so bad that recognised world platforms had to ban his speech!!! He was obviously so toxic, organising Antifa and BLM activists to "attack" the Capitol.

Stand back for one minute, do some research (not the BBC), and then see what really happened.

Trust me, when you understand that, you will start to get a grip on the lies you have been spun.

But I guess you don't want to understand, or question, or second guess the narrative you portray.....because if you did you firstly would be shocked and stunned, and after that would quickly follow the feeling of anger that something made you look so stupid.

But you are not stupid Chris........do the research.

I haven't watched the Beeb (or ITV) for some time now; I'm bored of the UK's Covid obsession that seemingly has to command every single news briefing regardless of whether there is anything really new or not

But the Trump thing is all about opinion and I think are poles apart in our thinking and I'm not sure either of us is fully right or wrong

One of the big problems in the USA (I watch their news programmes) is that the political hierarchy tend to be as partisan as any I have seen and that doesn't help in such circumstances as these

I haven't once said Trump was the quote "anti-Christ"; it isn't something I would use as an analogy. However, I do believe Trump has issues, including narcissism, which make him unable to take on advice and information from outside his ow head that might just have made him a betterPresident; a bit like Tony Blair when he made all those well meant but ultimately undeliverable promises back in the 90's

Thos so-called 'platforms' banned Trump, as they do with others, for what he said and the lies he was putting out there. It's not hard to understand; he was peddling lies from Day One of his entrance into the political arena

I was in Miami when the first impeachment was being laid and I watched with incredulity as the 'powers that be' went so hard in to discredit and malign the new POTUS. His seat wasn't even Luke warm

But having watched him I the years since, I can only conclude that the man is not a person that should hold such high office and even his own Party (maybe with political motives) now admit that and it was only the 'unconstitutional' argument (to which no one has definitively answered) you mentioned above that gave the Republicns the leeway to justify their 'Not Guilty' votes that history will ultimately be the jury of

As always, I respect your views and appreciate the tone in which we are able to converse

Weird way to look at it, given its the establishment who have acquitted him.

Either way, hopefully those on all sides will draw a line under it all now so they can unite their country.

I did say before both times they tried to impeach him that it was all going to be academic, because he was always going to be acquitted by the Senate.

yep its called a witch hunt.... its been a whole term of fighting off one mud slinging attack after another...another attempted impeachment to put on his CV.

But having watched him I the years since, I can only conclude that the man is not a person that should hold such high officef

The alternative view perhaps being when you have nothing but career politicians in place (Biden, Pelosi and Schumer have an incredible 114 years in office between them) then perhaps the only alternative however unpalatable it might be for some, is a bombastic narcissist from the outside to gatecrash the whole party and stir shit up.

Personally, I think what comes next from the American right (I'm not sure the Republicans will survive or if there will be a breakaway party) will be a leader that straddles the more traditional politicians role and whatever the hell Trump was.

Ted Cruz is playing the game well at the moment and could be that man. I'm also interested to see what Tulsi Gabbard will do in the next few years. She could bring a lot of people from the left to a newly formed party if it were to happen.

For the next four years though may best is we can just expect career politicians to do corrupt career politician things.

As always, I respect your views and appreciate the tone in which we are able to converse

That is the important thing we should all remember. Good ideas only get tested out by honest discussions. Well said Sven.

Perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part.

Is playing a 'part enough' for impeachment on the ground of incitement or just more Orange Man Bad?

Let's look at some undeniable facts around the election:

Biden had 13Million more votes than Obama despite not really campaigning at all.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-popular-vote-record-barack-obama-us-presidential-election-donald-trump/
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/09/joe-bide ... tion-trump

Biden lost all but one bellwether county, something that has never happened in the history of US elections and 19 of these had called every election since 1980 - Trump won 18 of the 19
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/11/18/biden-win-ends-streak-for-us-election-bellwethers/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... unties-go/

Trump is the only sitting President since John Quincy Adams almost a hundred years ago to have increased his vote and not get re-elected
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

More people voted for Trump than any other sitting president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

Trump increased his vote amongst minority voters and historically whenever a republican does this they get re-elected.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-vote-rising-among-blacks-hispanics-despite-conventional-wisdom-ncna1245787

The undercard votes on Biden tickets were again at record lows compared not just to US elections but pretty much any free and fair election in the world.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/11/bidens-popular-vote-win-didnt-help-house-democrats/617211/

Biden only made grounds in the key states he needed to win
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/940689086/narrow-wins-in-these-key-states-powered-biden-to-the-presidency

The democrats took heavy losses in the house and senate across the board except in the swing states.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/15/934586955/house-democrats-dissect-what-went-wrong-and-how-to-rebound-from-losses

Mail-in voting which is open to widespread fraud was heavily used in a US election for the first time and it was pushed hard by the democrats.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26487418
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... n-analysis

Changes to voting regulations and legislations were introduced in key states shortly before the election
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/9-states-where-rules-voting-have-been-changed-or-challenged-n1026886

There isn't a single thing in the above list that is remotely questionable and looking at the above it is reasonable assertion to suggest the election could have been open to fraud. I'm not saying fraud happened, just that it could have and the above list of fully verifiable facts that statistically are all anomalous when combined would raise enough legitimate doubts to warrant an investigation to make sure the election was able to hold up to scrutiny.

This means Trump, as sitting president during the 2020 election, had a legal, constitutional and moral duty to question the veracity of the results fully within the remit of the US legal system on behalf of the 74 million people who voted for him to ensure that all votes were treated equally as per the 14th Amendment.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... ndment-xiv

Equally, incitement has a very distinct legal definition in the US: the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2102

Nothing he has said at any point was even close to incitement, and every move he made was not only made through the legal channels but technically it can be argued he was obligated to make as sitting President to uphold the constitution.

The whole impeachment was never ever going to hold water.

What I found interesting was how shite Trump's lawyers were, I get that they knew it never really mattered anyway, but with the publicity surrounding the impeachment, trial I'm surprised they didn't go to town on ripping the democrats to shreds. That plus the lack of pardon for Assange suggests a deal has been done for something, but I'm not sure what.

That does read like 'we had more possession and more shots so we deserve to win'. If only the hundreds of law suits he's started in courts packed with republicans could prove anything.

For the mail in voter fraud, didn't trump reject laws for tightening votes?

Perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part.

Is playing a 'part enough' for impeachment on the ground of incitement or just more Orange Man Bad?

Let's look at some undeniable facts around the election:

Biden had 13Million more votes than Obama despite not really campaigning at all.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-popular-vote-record-barack-obama-us-presidential-election-donald-trump/
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/09/joe-bide ... tion-trump

Biden lost all but one bellwether county, something that has never happened in the history of US elections and 19 of these had called every election since 1980 - Trump won 18 of the 19
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/11/18/biden-win-ends-streak-for-us-election-bellwethers/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... unties-go/

Trump is the only sitting President since John Quincy Adams almost a hundred years ago to have increased his vote and not get re-elected
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

More people voted for Trump than any other sitting president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

Trump increased his vote amongst minority voters and historically whenever a republican does this they get re-elected.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-vote-rising-among-blacks-hispanics-despite-conventional-wisdom-ncna1245787

The undercard votes on Biden tickets were again at record lows compared not just to US elections but pretty much any free and fair election in the world.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/11/bidens-popular-vote-win-didnt-help-house-democrats/617211/

Biden only made grounds in the key states he needed to win
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/940689086/narrow-wins-in-these-key-states-powered-biden-to-the-presidency

The democrats took heavy losses in the house and senate across the board except in the swing states.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/15/934586955/house-democrats-dissect-what-went-wrong-and-how-to-rebound-from-losses

Mail-in voting which is open to widespread fraud was heavily used in a US election for the first time and it was pushed hard by the democrats.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26487418
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... n-analysis

Changes to voting regulations and legislations were introduced in key states shortly before the election
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/9-states-where-rules-voting-have-been-changed-or-challenged-n1026886

There isn't a single thing in the above list that is remotely questionable and looking at the above it is reasonable assertion to suggest the election could have been open to fraud. I'm not saying fraud happened, just that it could have and the above list of fully verifiable facts that statistically are all anomalous when combined would raise enough legitimate doubts to warrant an investigation to make sure the election was able to hold up to scrutiny.

This means Trump, as sitting president during the 2020 election, had a legal, constitutional and moral duty to question the veracity of the results fully within the remit of the US legal system on behalf of the 74 million people who voted for him to ensure that all votes were treated equally as per the 14th Amendment.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... ndment-xiv

Equally, incitement has a very distinct legal definition in the US: the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2102

Nothing he has said at any point was even close to incitement, and every move he made was not only made through the legal channels but technically it can be argued he was obligated to make as sitting President to uphold the constitution.

The whole impeachment was never ever going to hold water.

What I found interesting was how shite Trump's lawyers were, I get that they knew it never really mattered anyway, but with the publicity surrounding the impeachment, trial I'm surprised they didn't go to town on ripping the democrats to shreds. That plus the lack of pardon for Assange suggests a deal has been done for something, but I'm not sure what.

on your last but one point Ted Cruz claims he asked Trumps lawyers to go easy as they had already won but there was a chance they could p155 people off...

That does read like 'we had more possession and more shots so we deserve to win'. If only the hundreds of law suits he's started in courts packed with republicans could prove anything.

For the mail in voter fraud, didn't trump reject laws for tightening votes?

You're missing the point though Josh.

I'm not commenting on whether or not the vote was fraudulently stolen. This is why I avoided things that are unproven like the whole dominion stuff, overnight spikes in Georgia, dead voters, voters whose addresses were empty parking lots etc. That is an entirely different conversation and I left it to the side deliberately as to not confuse the matter.

What I am saying is that there were enough verifiable anomalies to warrant closer scrutiny especially given the introduction of mail-in voting which does of course open the possibility of widespread voter fraud.

As sitting President, Trump given the amount of these anomalies not only had a right but also it could be argued, a constitutional duty to challenge the election findings through the US legal system - which is what he did.

Taking this into account, the legitimate legal challenges he made cannot logically be used as evidence of inciting insurrection which is what the impeachment trial focused on.

The point I was responding to was when you suggested "perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part" [in encouraging the rioters that entered the capital building so, therefore, he is guilty of incitement]

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

If that is what you are suggesting though, then just step back away from the tribal nature of the discussion for a minute and think that through.

It is an insane leap of logic to suggest that the evidence for him inciting insurrection is the fact that he challenged the incredibly unusually results of an election through the legal system available to him.

That just doesn't add up in any way shape or form the moment it goes under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny.

on your last but one point Ted Cruz claims he asked Trumps lawyers to go easy as they had already won but there was a chance they could p155 people off...

Interesting. Cruz is certainly seeming to be the Republican thinking the furthest down the line at the minute...

on your last but one point Ted Cruz claims he asked Trumps lawyers to go easy as they had already won but there was a chance they could p155 people off...

Interesting. Cruz is certainly seeming to be the Republican thinking the furthest down the line at the minute...

yep , Cruz take on it was an absolute max 57 votes with 67 needed... so the defence should be go through the motions without rattling cages... im puzzled what it was all about tbh mate... and seeing how josh has brought football into it ,the dems look like a bunch of jacks... win , top of the league BUT far more importantly hope Cardiff lost....
on that note, poor result for your boys team...

on your last but one point Ted Cruz claims he asked Trumps lawyers to go easy as they had already won but there was a chance they could p155 people off...

Interesting. Cruz is certainly seeming to be the Republican thinking the furthest down the line at the minute...

yep , Cruz take on it was an absolute max 57 votes with 67 needed... so the defence should be go through the motions without rattling cages... im puzzled what it was all about tbh mate... and seeing how josh has brought football into it ,the dems look like a bunch of jacks... win , top of the league BUT far more importantly hope Cardiff lost....
on that note, poor result for your boys team...

He's a smart operator Cruz and I think he knows there is a massive Trump base to build on but also knows currently things need to simmer down while the Dems and their friends in media are on the hunt for who can fill the big Trump-shaped whole for them to direct their anger at.


Yeah, poor day at the office for the Bees. Me saying Toney will hit 30 this season has probably been the kiss of death! To be honest with their playoff record (they've lost 4 out of 4 finals!) they better sort their shit out and go up in the autos! Am sure they'll be fine to be fair, they're a very, very good side this year.

The point I was responding to was when you suggested "perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part" [in encouraging the rioters that entered the capital building so, therefore, he is guilty of incitement]

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

If that is what you are suggesting though, then just step back away from the tribal nature of the discussion for a minute and think that through.

It is an insane leap of logic to suggest that the evidence for him inciting insurrection is the fact that he challenged the incredibly unusually results of an election through the legal system available to him.

That just doesn't add up in any way shape or form the moment it goes under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny.

I know he never told people to go and shoot people but if you have a look at what he said at the 'Save America' rally:

"We took them by surprise and this year, they rigged an election.

They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before. By the way, last night, they didn’t do a bad job either, if you notice. I’m honest. I just, again, I want to thank you. It’s just a great honour to have this kind of crowd and to be before you. Hundreds of thousands of American patriots are committed to the honesty of our elections and the integrity of our glorious republic. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’re doing"

"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."

"we will stop the steal. Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide"

"
I was told by the real pollsters, we do have real pollsters. They know that we were going to do well, and we were going to win. What I was told, if I went from 63 million, which we had four years ago to 66 million, there was no chance of losing. Well, we didn’t go to 66. We went to 75 million and they say we lost. We didn’t lose."

" What an absolute disgrace, that this could be happening to our constitution.’ "

" We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution and protect our constitution. States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information."

" Although with this administration, if this happens, it could happen. You’ll see some really bad things happen.

They’ll knock out Lincoln too, by the way. "

"
We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s Capitol for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy. "

Imagine being in a crowd of passionate trump supporters hearing that and a lot more (that was just some selections and I wasn't even a third of the way through) standing outside the building where all the 'stealing' was happening, can you see why that might have riled them to commit that terrorism?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech

The point I was responding to was when you suggested "perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part" [in encouraging the rioters that entered the capital building so, therefore, he is guilty of incitement]

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

If that is what you are suggesting though, then just step back away from the tribal nature of the discussion for a minute and think that through.

It is an insane leap of logic to suggest that the evidence for him inciting insurrection is the fact that he challenged the incredibly unusually results of an election through the legal system available to him.

That just doesn't add up in any way shape or form the moment it goes under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny.

I know he never told people to go and shoot people but if you have a look at what he said at the 'Save America' rally:

"We took them by surprise and this year, they rigged an election.

They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before. By the way, last night, they didn’t do a bad job either, if you notice. I’m honest. I just, again, I want to thank you. It’s just a great honour to have this kind of crowd and to be before you. Hundreds of thousands of American patriots are committed to the honesty of our elections and the integrity of our glorious republic. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’re doing"

"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."

"we will stop the steal. Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide"

"
I was told by the real pollsters, we do have real pollsters. They know that we were going to do well, and we were going to win. What I was told, if I went from 63 million, which we had four years ago to 66 million, there was no chance of losing. Well, we didn’t go to 66. We went to 75 million and they say we lost. We didn’t lose."

" What an absolute disgrace, that this could be happening to our constitution.’ "

" We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution and protect our constitution. States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information."

" Although with this administration, if this happens, it could happen. You’ll see some really bad things happen.

They’ll knock out Lincoln too, by the way. "

"
We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s Capitol for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy. "

Imagine being in a crowd of passionate trump supporters hearing that and a lot more (that was just some selections and I wasn't even a third of the way through) standing outside the building where all the 'stealing' was happening, can you see why that might have riled them to commit that terrorism?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech

But Josh, there isn't a single line in there that qualifies as incitement and this is the point I am making.

You can read into it what you want, others can and will read it another way, but it is all 100% subjective

All the above quotes and every other quote I have seen used in such arguments fall outside of the very clearly defined legal parameters of the US legal definition of incitement (which I posted earlier.)

Impeachment is a legal procedure, it is a political one but ostensibly it is still operating within a legal framework. The article of impeachment was the incitement of insurrection.

You've suggested by simply questioning the validity of election results and challenging that through the US legal system that Trump was establishing a narrative that encouraged the insurrection. That just isn't correct.

Now, you've listed a bunch of quotes and not one of them would fall within the legal definition of incitement.

Perhaps Trump was genius and spoke incredibly deliberately to tread the line just carefully enough to whip up the crowd and still claim there is no incitement. Perhaps he is a bombastic buffoon and didn't realise what he was saying and just got lucky.

Either way, there is nothing, literally nothing that can firmly tie him to the charge of incitement of insurrection.

Given that it was an impossible charge to prove, and that the likelihood of convincing enough Republicans to cross the aisle to convict him without such evidence is non-existant, and that the Democrats would have known all of this themselves - the question remains what was the whole point in this political theatre?

Didn't he say...

"When the looting starts, the shooting starts".

Kinda catchy but absolutely not condoning or encouraging it.

That does read like 'we had more possession and more shots so we deserve to win'. If only the hundreds of law suits he's started in courts packed with republicans could prove anything.

For the mail in voter fraud, didn't trump reject laws for tightening votes?

You're missing the point though Josh.

I'm not commenting on whether or not the vote was fraudulently stolen. This is why I avoided things that are unproven like the whole dominion stuff, overnight spikes in Georgia, dead voters, voters whose addresses were empty parking lots etc. That is an entirely different conversation and I left it to the side deliberately as to not confuse the matter.

What I am saying is that there were enough verifiable anomalies to warrant closer scrutiny especially given the introduction of mail-in voting which does of course open the possibility of widespread voter fraud.

As sitting President, Trump given the amount of these anomalies not only had a right but also it could be argued, a constitutional duty to challenge the election findings through the US legal system - which is what he did.

Taking this into account, the legitimate legal challenges he made cannot logically be used as evidence of inciting insurrection which is what the impeachment trial focused on.

The point I was responding to was when you suggested "perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part" [in encouraging the rioters that entered the capital building so, therefore, he is guilty of incitement]

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

If that is what you are suggesting though, then just step back away from the tribal nature of the discussion for a minute and think that through.

It is an insane leap of logic to suggest that the evidence for him inciting insurrection is the fact that he challenged the incredibly unusually results of an election through the legal system available to him.

That just doesn't add up in any way shape or form the moment it goes under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny.

Trump had every right to challenge results - even CNN acknowledged that. But his approach to it, his stirring up, his rhetoric was not right from a ‘leader’ of a government.

He had the courts open to challenge - they all threw the cases out though due to a lack of evidence. Yet still he continued to claim fraud.

As I said in an earlier post, people like Trump and Farage call ‘foul play in the system’ when they think something isn’t going their way...but suddenly the system is robust when they won...until they lose again and once again they call the system into question. In 2016 despite losing the popular vote, he won a number of previously democratic states by Uber slim margins allowing him the electoral college victory - where was his claim of ‘rigged votes’ then?

It’s inconceivable to think that the rhetoric, language and aggression of Trump and his team (Rudy especially) over months, didn’t do anything to encourage the actions of Jan 6th. The pictures, the interviews with rioters and frankly his complete inaction on the day should be enough to show this. Even McConnell said he was guilty of incitement last night.

Why did they push the protest for Jan 6th, why was Rudy caught on tape saying they need the confirmation slowed down, why was Trump calling out Pence before and during the riot?

Trump had every right to challenge results - even CNN acknowledged that. But his approach to it, his stirring up, his rhetoric was not right from a ‘leader’ of a government.

He had the courts open to challenge - they all threw the cases out though due to a lack of evidence. Yet still he continued to claim fraud.

As I said in an earlier post, people like Trump and Farage call ‘foul play in the system’ when they think something isn’t going their way...but suddenly the system is robust when they won...until they lose again and once again they call the system into question. In 2016 despite losing the popular vote, he won a number of previously democratic states by Uber slim margins allowing him the electoral college victory - where was his claim of ‘rigged votes’ then?

It’s inconceivable to think that the rhetoric, language and aggression of Trump and his team (Rudy especially) over months, didn’t do anything to encourage the actions of Jan 6th. The pictures, the interviews with rioters and frankly his complete inaction on the day should be enough to show this. Even McConnell said he was guilty of incitement last night.

Why did they push the protest for Jan 6th, why was Rudy caught on tape saying they need the confirmation slowed down, why was Trump calling out Pence before and during the riot?

Hypothetically, the protest was on Jan 6th as they were to peacefully march on the Capital while the senate was in session to make a powerful, non-violent political demonstration. You could also argue it was an evil plan to storm the capital - but there's no proof of that, it is until proven, by its very definition, a conspiracy theory.

Rudy wanted the confirmation slowed down because the judicial system ran out of time, in many cases the judiciary didn't actually review the evidence because of time constraints so cases were rejected as they couldn't' be completed in time, rather than dismissed because of a lack of evidence. Again not really that contentious

Trump called, I think unfairly on Pence, to do something I don't think he could have done and reject the votes, but it was as the American like to say a final hail Mary pass. Dick move, but again not incitement to insurrection.

None of these or anything else listed in the thread so far is more than circumstantial evidence though. The American judicial system, just like our own, is based around proof of guilt not proof of innocence being required.

Just because you and a lot of other people, feel the way he behaved and 'his rhetoric was not right from a ‘leader’ of a government.' doesn't make it an impeachable offence.

It is not incitement to insurrection to talk like an arrogant prick or even a whiny little bitch, it's just being a dick.

Being a dick is not an impeachable offence (they'd have had him when he was actually president if it were).

People can hate him and his style all they want, but it doesn't change the fact Trump never in a million years came anywhere close to anything that could be viewed as incitement to insurrection which again has a very, very specific legal definition.

Whatsmore, the burden of proof was on the democrats to prove Trump willfully incited an insurrection and just to say it one more time - the evidence that proves his guilt under the parameters of the US legal definition of incitement just doesn't exist, it never has.

Like I said in an earlier post, perhaps Trump is just a bombastic buffoon who got lucky by not saying the right words. Perhaps he is an evil mastermind and knew exactly how to sail close enough to the wind without setting himself up.

Either way, it really doesn't matter.

There was no solid evidence for incitement and without that, there was ZERO chance of impeachment going through as not enough Republicans would cross the aisle without an obvious smoking gun.

The bigger question that people seem to keep overlooking is why was the whole charade put on in the first place when it was obvious from the start that impeachment would never go through?

Was it a distraction to look the other way while Biden ushers in record numbers of first month Executive orders? possibly. Perhaps to keep the anger focused in one direction so it isn't turned on themselves? possibly. Was it just petty vengeance? Again possibly.

It was always an empty gesture so why go through the whole expensive charade? That is the only point I'm making here.

ealing_ayatollah......will you please stop stating facts, telling the truth and exposing the US "democracy" for what it is.....it just confuses people!!!

The point I was responding to was when you suggested "perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part" [in encouraging the rioters that entered the capital building so, therefore, he is guilty of incitement]

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

If that is what you are suggesting though, then just step back away from the tribal nature of the discussion for a minute and think that through.

It is an insane leap of logic to suggest that the evidence for him inciting insurrection is the fact that he challenged the incredibly unusually results of an election through the legal system available to him.

That just doesn't add up in any way shape or form the moment it goes under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny.

I know he never told people to go and shoot people but if you have a look at what he said at the 'Save America' rally:

"We took them by surprise and this year, they rigged an election.

They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before. By the way, last night, they didn’t do a bad job either, if you notice. I’m honest. I just, again, I want to thank you. It’s just a great honour to have this kind of crowd and to be before you. Hundreds of thousands of American patriots are committed to the honesty of our elections and the integrity of our glorious republic. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’re doing"

"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."

"we will stop the steal. Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide"

"
I was told by the real pollsters, we do have real pollsters. They know that we were going to do well, and we were going to win. What I was told, if I went from 63 million, which we had four years ago to 66 million, there was no chance of losing. Well, we didn’t go to 66. We went to 75 million and they say we lost. We didn’t lose."

" What an absolute disgrace, that this could be happening to our constitution.’ "

" We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution and protect our constitution. States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information."

" Although with this administration, if this happens, it could happen. You’ll see some really bad things happen.

They’ll knock out Lincoln too, by the way. "

"
We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s Capitol for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy. "

Imagine being in a crowd of passionate trump supporters hearing that and a lot more (that was just some selections and I wasn't even a third of the way through) standing outside the building where all the 'stealing' was happening, can you see why that might have riled them to commit that terrorism?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech

But Josh, there isn't a single line in there that qualifies as incitement and this is the point I am making.

You can read into it what you want, others can and will read it another way, but it is all 100% subjective

All the above quotes and every other quote I have seen used in such arguments fall outside of the very clearly defined legal parameters of the US legal definition of incitement (which I posted earlier.)

Impeachment is a legal procedure, it is a political one but ostensibly it is still operating within a legal framework. The article of impeachment was the incitement of insurrection.

You've suggested by simply questioning the validity of election results and challenging that through the US legal system that Trump was establishing a narrative that encouraged the insurrection. That just isn't correct.

Now, you've listed a bunch of quotes and not one of them would fall within the legal definition of incitement.

Perhaps Trump was genius and spoke incredibly deliberately to tread the line just carefully enough to whip up the crowd and still claim there is no incitement. Perhaps he is a bombastic buffoon and didn't realise what he was saying and just got lucky.

Either way, there is nothing, literally nothing that can firmly tie him to the charge of incitement of insurrection.

Given that it was an impossible charge to prove, and that the likelihood of convincing enough Republicans to cross the aisle to convict him without such evidence is non-existant, and that the Democrats would have known all of this themselves - the question remains what was the whole point in this political theatre?

I'm not passing comment on his impeachment or whether he does the dictionary definition of anything, the point I'm trying to make is that his speech and his comments in the preceding year will have been a huge factor in the peoples decision to attack the capitol.

If the leader of isis or Al qaeda did a similar speech and then a couple of hours later there was an attack on the same building and I brought up the fact that he didn't do the legal definition of incitement so its fine there'd be hell on here.

I'm not passing comment on his impeachment or whether he does the dictionary definition of anything, the point I'm trying to make is that his speech and his comments in the preceding year will have been a huge factor in the peoples decision to attack the capitol.

If the leader of isis or Al qaeda did a similar speech and then a couple of hours later there was an attack on the same building and I brought up the fact that he didn't do the legal definition of incitement so its fine there'd be hell on here.

Jeez Josh, please get a grip of reality, just for once.

Essentially your first paragraph inference is the same as saying if I told somebody to incite violence a year ago, and they did it today I am culpable! seriously??? And on that point you are assuming it was Trump supporters who actually walked into that building........the building that should be so protected, but for some strange reason wasn't on that particular day.

Then you go on to compare the President of the United States to a couple of terrorist groups!!! You scraped the barrel on your first paragraph, on your second you are seriously digging so low you might get to Oz.

The point I was responding to was when you suggested "perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part" [in encouraging the rioters that entered the capital building so, therefore, he is guilty of incitement]

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

If that is what you are suggesting though, then just step back away from the tribal nature of the discussion for a minute and think that through.

It is an insane leap of logic to suggest that the evidence for him inciting insurrection is the fact that he challenged the incredibly unusually results of an election through the legal system available to him.

That just doesn't add up in any way shape or form the moment it goes under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny.

I know he never told people to go and shoot people but if you have a look at what he said at the 'Save America' rally:

"We took them by surprise and this year, they rigged an election.

They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before. By the way, last night, they didn’t do a bad job either, if you notice. I’m honest. I just, again, I want to thank you. It’s just a great honour to have this kind of crowd and to be before you. Hundreds of thousands of American patriots are committed to the honesty of our elections and the integrity of our glorious republic. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’re doing"

"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."

"we will stop the steal. Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide"

"
I was told by the real pollsters, we do have real pollsters. They know that we were going to do well, and we were going to win. What I was told, if I went from 63 million, which we had four years ago to 66 million, there was no chance of losing. Well, we didn’t go to 66. We went to 75 million and they say we lost. We didn’t lose."

" What an absolute disgrace, that this could be happening to our constitution.’ "

" We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution and protect our constitution. States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information."

" Although with this administration, if this happens, it could happen. You’ll see some really bad things happen.

They’ll knock out Lincoln too, by the way. "

"
We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s Capitol for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy. "

Imagine being in a crowd of passionate trump supporters hearing that and a lot more (that was just some selections and I wasn't even a third of the way through) standing outside the building where all the 'stealing' was happening, can you see why that might have riled them to commit that terrorism?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech

seriously ? ive read it before but did again and no, and i doubt even someone with previous for reacting OTT like yourself would be incited to attack the building... and on that note.. did any of them really expect to be wondering around inside ? was way too easy...

I'm not passing comment on his impeachment or whether he does the dictionary definition of anything, the point I'm trying to make is that his speech and his comments in the preceding year will have been a huge factor in the peoples decision to attack the capitol.

If the leader of isis or Al qaeda did a similar speech and then a couple of hours later there was an attack on the same building and I brought up the fact that he didn't do the legal definition of incitement so its fine there'd be hell on here.

OK...

But I did specifically say

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

Before you doubled down and went to the effort of grabbing all those quotes and I was quite clear that I was referring to there being no legal case across all my posts in this thread so you could have saved yourself a bit of effort there.

So based on what you've put above, I assume you would hold AOC, Kamala Harris and Maxine Waters equally accountable as they all supported the notion that rioting is a valid form of protest?

Ted Cruz would win the competition to find the world's most spineless man. He whimpered to a man who made disgusting comments about his wife and blackened his dead fathers name. Cruz is unfit to run for any type of government office.

https://www.showbiz411.com/2018/04/19/s ... assination

Ted Cruz would win the competition to find the world's most spineless man. He whimpered to a man who made disgusting comments about his wife and blackened his dead fathers name. Cruz is unfit to run for any type of government office.

https://www.showbiz411.com/2018/04/19/s ... assination

Or alternatively, maybe he's putting the good of the people he is elected to serve above the petty bickering that passes for politics these days.

“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.”
— Ronald Reagan