I read the House memo supporting impeachment

[meaner gene]

As I said, they provided a place and the machinery to assist them in filling out their ballots in order to minimize ballots being thrown out because of errors filling it out. And verifying their signatures using their photo on their voter ID.

Now all you need do is link the law approving that procedure, county clerks don't make law.

Alternate absentee ballot site.
(1)  The governing body of a municipality may elect to designate a site other than the office of the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners as the location from which electors of the municipality may request and vote absentee ballots and to which voted absentee ballots shall be returned by electors for any election. The designated site shall be located as near as practicable to the office of the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners and no site may be designated that affords an advantage to any political party. An election by a governing body to designate an alternate site under this section shall be made no fewer than 14 days prior to the time that absentee ballots are available for the primary under s. 7.15 (1) (cm),


 An alternate site under sub. (1) shall be accessible to all individuals with disabilities.
(5) A governing body may designate more than one alternate site under sub. (1).

Methods for obtaining an absentee ballot.
(1) 

2. In person at the office of the municipal clerk or at an alternate site under s. 6.855, if applicable.

Wisconsin Legislature: 6.03

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

History: 2003 a. 265; 2005 a. 253, 451; 2009 a. 180; 2011 a. 23, 115, 227; 2015 a. 118, 196; 2017 a. 369.

 

[White 6]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

We will expect you to demand Kamala's impeachment and removal from office the first time someone tries to tell a Republican they're not welcome anywhere and someone gets hurt. You will do that, right?

OK. Kind of doubt she will quit on my say so, but if she tells a republican they are not welcome somewhere they have right to be and somebody gets hurt, remind me and I will write the demand here and apologize to you. Can't get any more fair minded than that.

 

[meaner gene]

The trump lawyers either lost, straight up on the facts, or if attempting to slip in accusations in argument, were asked by judges (including republican judges) if they would like to formally make their charges instead of by inference, but they refused. I think they were afraid to make their charges in a court of law, in front of a judge, in fear of losing their license to practice by openly making false accusation or leveling frivolous charges in an attempt to over[turn] the election. They could have had dead serious belief in their charge, but it only went to trump when he hired them, and the public at the courthouse steps, but not in front of the judge.

They confuse what lawyers said outside the court, where they could say anything, as lies are protected by the 1st amendment.

Once inside the court, that's a different story. They believe the lawyers said the same thing to the judge that they did outside the courtroom, which they obviously did not.

 

[OKTexas]

Simple, if what you claimed were true, he would be convicted. That ain't gonna happen, so you're obviously wrong.

.

No dummy, I posted the definition, it wasn't my guess.

Tell me how Trump hasn't met the definition of incitement.

Sure, just as soon as you tell me how he did. Simply posting a definition doesn't make it applicable.

.

 

[OKTexas]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

interesting analogy. But if my trash fire gets out of control I can't be convicted of arson or any intentional burning of other's property. I could get fined. I could probably be charged with some crime of illegal burning if I failed to do something required or burned during a burn notice.

I'm not defending Trump. I've thought since the 1980s that he was richtrash. There's not much I think he's above trying to do if he thinks he can get away with it. And I'm not complaining about him being impeached …. twice.

But unless the dems have some link to the organizers who brought weapons and an agreement to storm the capital or hurt policepeople ….. there's no basis to ban him from running again. And he'd probably help dems if he did.

To do nothing and let politics run it's course and let trump off the hook for what he brought about over the two months after the election, violence or no violence is the same as the hands off approach as the mayor and governor in Portland. It will not cool down until you just say NO and mean it. This was beyond the pale. Post election violence whipped up by an elected politician can become pre-election violence whipped up by the same politician or another. A message must be sent. The message to those politicians that would use their rhetoric and false unprovable accusations to stampede a herd, must be NO.

Yet you're not demanding accountability for the politicians that egged on the riots, looting, arson and murders over the summer. In fact kneepads harriss helped raise bail money to get her soldiers back on the streets ASAP. STFU hypocrite.

.

Not that the same. Your cheap Jedi mind tricks don't work on me, boy.

Yeah, I know facts confuse the shit out of you commies. What the hell does, "Not that the same.", even mean? Me thinks your ESL is showing. Are you posting from some commie country?

.

Scratch the word "that" and read it again. Enjoy the trial.

LMAO Perhaps you should have read it again.

.

Laugh clown laugh, but he is tarred with it and will be further tarred and the ones in the Senate that support the insurrection and his right to incite it will be tarred with him, making us all safer from them ever being elected president for fear they would try it again after showing their support for mob violence to take over the government and negate the lawful results of free election, by the people of the United States.

It's been proven the election was neither lawful or free in some States. And after the public see how the commies fuck up the country, Trump could probably win in a landslide. Millions are already regretting their votes, and the commies haven't been in charge for two weeks yet.

.

How do you figure? It was disputed in court in all states trumpers have complained about, including state supreme courts. The trump lawyers either lost, straight up on the facts, or if attempting to slip in accusations in argument, were asked by judges (including republican judges) if they would like to formally make their charges instead of by inference, but they refused. I think they were afraid to make their charges in a court of law, in front of a judge, in fear of losing their license to practice by openly making false accusation or leveling frivolous charges in an attempt to over the election. They could have had dead serious belief in their charge, but it only went to trump when he hired them, and the public at the courthouse steps, but not in front of the judge. So, what are you saying? Trumpers only hire cowards? Trumpers only hire shitty lawyers? Several big name firms dropped out quick when judges started asking direct questions. If it wasn't important to your lawyers to get flaky accusations and flaky evidence on the record for their client and you, why is it important to you now, 61+ court cases later. Did you write them a berate them to sacrifice themselves for what you think is the common good? If not, why give me a hard time. I didn't drop the ball on your court cases. I just act and speak in reliance that the courts (democrat and republic) and the legislatures of the various state did their jobs and only passed the truth, in accordance with the laws of their states and this country.
I do not think you care about the law, the courts, the legislature or the votes of the people. You just want your boy (for whatever crazy reason), so if choosing between your boy and free election, you will choose your boy, by hook or by crook. It don't work that way.

Here's a simple challenge, name one court that heard the merits of a case. The one I know of that did, Trump won.

.

 

[OKTexas]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

Yeah, telling folks to "peacefully and patriotically make their VOICED HEARD", just makes folks want to break something. You're a fucking idiot.

.

No arguing with what they did that day. No arguing trump encouraged them to go their after firing them up at the "stop the steal" rally. Effect usually follows cause.

Your problem is the FBI has proved plans were in place days before the speech. So you have no cause.

.

He had been talking them up with fake "stolen election" lies for months before the stop the steal rally he invited them to on the day both houses of congress were meeting to receive the electoral count. He is responsible.

Lies? So you're saying States like WI, MI, PA, AZ and GA didn't violate their own election laws. Damn you really are delusional. Hell I'll even give you one example. WI has no early in person voting, so some creative county officials invented early in person absentee voting. That's a fucking oxymoron. How the hell does that work or make sense?

.

Take it up with the several states. The court (including the trump appointed judge courts) rule against you.

No they didn't, they have to hear the evidence, they refused to do so. That equates to a NO DECISION.

.

Write a book. Maybe you can sell it.

I'm busy on a song at the moment. I'll let ya know who records it.

.

I hope you write better songs than posts on here or it will be taken as a comedy song. I look forward to hearing it.

I do a pretty good job with poetry as well. But the song I'm working on will be a country song, so I doubt you'll hear it.

.

 

[meaner gene]

Looks like Wisconsin law 6.855 authorized what OKTexas thought wasn't in Wisconsin election law.

Alternate absentee ballot site.

(1)  The governing body of a municipality may elect to designate a site other than the office of the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners as the location from which electors of the municipality may request and vote absentee ballots and to which voted absentee ballots shall be returned by electors for any election.

Looks like that's just what they did when they set up in-person absentee balloting.

 

[meaner gene]

In case OKTexas is a little slow (or ESL)

WI 6.855 provides for setting up a site (or sites):

where they can request a ballot
where they can then vote that ballot
where they then return that ballot.

Now that was simple.

 

[White 6]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

interesting analogy. But if my trash fire gets out of control I can't be convicted of arson or any intentional burning of other's property. I could get fined. I could probably be charged with some crime of illegal burning if I failed to do something required or burned during a burn notice.

I'm not defending Trump. I've thought since the 1980s that he was richtrash. There's not much I think he's above trying to do if he thinks he can get away with it. And I'm not complaining about him being impeached …. twice.

But unless the dems have some link to the organizers who brought weapons and an agreement to storm the capital or hurt policepeople ….. there's no basis to ban him from running again. And he'd probably help dems if he did.

To do nothing and let politics run it's course and let trump off the hook for what he brought about over the two months after the election, violence or no violence is the same as the hands off approach as the mayor and governor in Portland. It will not cool down until you just say NO and mean it. This was beyond the pale. Post election violence whipped up by an elected politician can become pre-election violence whipped up by the same politician or another. A message must be sent. The message to those politicians that would use their rhetoric and false unprovable accusations to stampede a herd, must be NO.

Yet you're not demanding accountability for the politicians that egged on the riots, looting, arson and murders over the summer. In fact kneepads harriss helped raise bail money to get her soldiers back on the streets ASAP. STFU hypocrite.

.

Not that the same. Your cheap Jedi mind tricks don't work on me, boy.

Yeah, I know facts confuse the shit out of you commies. What the hell does, "Not that the same.", even mean? Me thinks your ESL is showing. Are you posting from some commie country?

.

Scratch the word "that" and read it again. Enjoy the trial.

LMAO Perhaps you should have read it again.

.

Laugh clown laugh, but he is tarred with it and will be further tarred and the ones in the Senate that support the insurrection and his right to incite it will be tarred with him, making us all safer from them ever being elected president for fear they would try it again after showing their support for mob violence to take over the government and negate the lawful results of free election, by the people of the United States.

It's been proven the election was neither lawful or free in some States. And after the public see how the commies fuck up the country, Trump could probably win in a landslide. Millions are already regretting their votes, and the commies haven't been in charge for two weeks yet.

.

How do you figure? It was disputed in court in all states trumpers have complained about, including state supreme courts. The trump lawyers either lost, straight up on the facts, or if attempting to slip in accusations in argument, were asked by judges (including republican judges) if they would like to formally make their charges instead of by inference, but they refused. I think they were afraid to make their charges in a court of law, in front of a judge, in fear of losing their license to practice by openly making false accusation or leveling frivolous charges in an attempt to over the election. They could have had dead serious belief in their charge, but it only went to trump when he hired them, and the public at the courthouse steps, but not in front of the judge. So, what are you saying? Trumpers only hire cowards? Trumpers only hire shitty lawyers? Several big name firms dropped out quick when judges started asking direct questions. If it wasn't important to your lawyers to get flaky accusations and flaky evidence on the record for their client and you, why is it important to you now, 61+ court cases later. Did you write them a berate them to sacrifice themselves for what you think is the common good? If not, why give me a hard time. I didn't drop the ball on your court cases. I just act and speak in reliance that the courts (democrat and republic) and the legislatures of the various state did their jobs and only passed the truth, in accordance with the laws of their states and this country.
I do not think you care about the law, the courts, the legislature or the votes of the people. You just want your boy (for whatever crazy reason), so if choosing between your boy and free election, you will choose your boy, by hook or by crook. It don't work that way.

Here's a simple challenge, name one court that heard the merits of a case. The one I know of that did, Trump won.

.

Which case? What charge was not heard? I will try to look it up in my spare time.

 

[White 6]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

Yeah, telling folks to "peacefully and patriotically make their VOICED HEARD", just makes folks want to break something. You're a fucking idiot.

.

No arguing with what they did that day. No arguing trump encouraged them to go their after firing them up at the "stop the steal" rally. Effect usually follows cause.

Your problem is the FBI has proved plans were in place days before the speech. So you have no cause.

.

He had been talking them up with fake "stolen election" lies for months before the stop the steal rally he invited them to on the day both houses of congress were meeting to receive the electoral count. He is responsible.

Lies? So you're saying States like WI, MI, PA, AZ and GA didn't violate their own election laws. Damn you really are delusional. Hell I'll even give you one example. WI has no early in person voting, so some creative county officials invented early in person absentee voting. That's a fucking oxymoron. How the hell does that work or make sense?

.

Take it up with the several states. The court (including the trump appointed judge courts) rule against you.

No they didn't, they have to hear the evidence, they refused to do so. That equates to a NO DECISION.

.

Write a book. Maybe you can sell it.

I'm busy on a song at the moment. I'll let ya know who records it.

.

I hope you write better songs than posts on here or it will be taken as a comedy song. I look forward to hearing it.

I do a pretty good job with poetry as well. But the song I'm working on will be a country song, so I doubt you'll hear it.

.

I used to sing and play guitar in G, C, and D. I am in Tennessee. I've even played and sung "Paradise" by John Prine, on stage to a mostly full house with a decided southern nasal twang, back in the day. I might surprise you.

 

[meaner gene]

Here's a simple challenge, name one court that heard the merits of a case. The one I know of that did, Trump won.

Which case? What charge was not heard? I will try to look it up in my spare time.

Start here

They made no claim of voter fraud in their filing.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163052/20201208133328638_TX-v-State-MPI-2020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf

STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF WISCONSIN, Defendants. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR STAY AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAY

 

[OKTexas]

As I said, they provided a place and the machinery to assist them in filling out their ballots in order to minimize ballots being thrown out because of errors filling it out. And verifying their signatures using their photo on their voter ID.

Now all you need do is link the law approving that procedure, county clerks don't make law.

Alternate absentee ballot site.
(1)  The governing body of a municipality may elect to designate a site other than the office of the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners as the location from which electors of the municipality may request and vote absentee ballots and to which voted absentee ballots shall be returned by electors for any election. The designated site shall be located as near as practicable to the office of the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners and no site may be designated that affords an advantage to any political party. An election by a governing body to designate an alternate site under this section shall be made no fewer than 14 days prior to the time that absentee ballots are available for the primary under s. 7.15 (1) (cm),


 An alternate site under sub. (1) shall be accessible to all individuals with disabilities.
(5) A governing body may designate more than one alternate site under sub. (1).

Methods for obtaining an absentee ballot.
(1) 

2. In person at the office of the municipal clerk or at an alternate site under s. 6.855, if applicable.

Wisconsin Legislature: 6.03

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

History: 2003 a. 265; 2005 a. 253, 451; 2009 a. 180; 2011 a. 23, 115, 227; 2015 a. 118, 196; 2017 a. 369.

Thanks.

.

 

[Rigby5]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

You are totally wrong.
I hate Trump and am far left of anyone on this board, but clearly it is NOT a lie if Trump believes it.
Trump may be psychotic, but likely he does believe the election was stolen.
And for that he can not be prosecuted.
All beliefs must be defended, including those that seem obviously wrong to us.

And no, if the accident that burns down a house is not obviously negligent, then you are not responsible.
Remember the incident in "Ben Hur" where the family is watching the new Roman governor arrive in Jerusalem, and his sister accidentally causes a roof tile to fall and kill the Roman governor?
Causing something to happen by accident does NOT automatically make you responsible unless you should have known it was likely to happen.
Not only is there no evidence Trump could expect it to lead to an occupation of Congress, but the occupation itself was only petty vandalism and trespassing, not a felony.

 

[OKTexas]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

Yeah, telling folks to "peacefully and patriotically make their VOICED HEARD", just makes folks want to break something. You're a fucking idiot.

.

No arguing with what they did that day. No arguing trump encouraged them to go their after firing them up at the "stop the steal" rally. Effect usually follows cause.

Your problem is the FBI has proved plans were in place days before the speech. So you have no cause.

.

He had been talking them up with fake "stolen election" lies for months before the stop the steal rally he invited them to on the day both houses of congress were meeting to receive the electoral count. He is responsible.

Lies? So you're saying States like WI, MI, PA, AZ and GA didn't violate their own election laws. Damn you really are delusional. Hell I'll even give you one example. WI has no early in person voting, so some creative county officials invented early in person absentee voting. That's a fucking oxymoron. How the hell does that work or make sense?

.

Take it up with the several states. The court (including the trump appointed judge courts) rule against you.

No they didn't, they have to hear the evidence, they refused to do so. That equates to a NO DECISION.

.

Write a book. Maybe you can sell it.

I'm busy on a song at the moment. I'll let ya know who records it.

.

I hope you write better songs than posts on here or it will be taken as a comedy song. I look forward to hearing it.

I do a pretty good job with poetry as well. But the song I'm working on will be a country song, so I doubt you'll hear it.

.

I used to sing and play guitar in G, C, and D. I am in Tennessee. I've even played and sung "Paradise" by John Prine, on stage to a mostly full house with a decided southern nasal twang, back in the day. I might surprise you.

Well hell, maybe you can help with the music when it comes time. I just do lyrics.

.

 

[Rigby5]

You guys wouldn't see a connection if trump would have broken into the capital himself. trump incited an insurrection and republicans will let him off the hook.

Nonsense.
To implement an insurrection, the protestors would have had to have had an intent of defeating not just the police, but the armed forces as well.
They then not only would have all been armed, but they would have wanted to kill all the police as quickly as possible.
Since they could have killed a number of police, but did not kill any at all, then clearly no insurection at all was intended.
What is far more likely is that they believe the media is ignoring them and anyone who has any election fraud information. So then this was a media event in order to gain a wider audience for their beliefs.

 

[Rigby5]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

interesting analogy. But if my trash fire gets out of control I can't be convicted of arson or any intentional burning of other's property. I could get fined. I could probably be charged with some crime of illegal burning if I failed to do something required or burned during a burn notice.

I'm not defending Trump. I've thought since the 1980s that he was richtrash. There's not much I think he's above trying to do if he thinks he can get away with it. And I'm not complaining about him being impeached …. twice.

But unless the dems have some link to the organizers who brought weapons and an agreement to storm the capital or hurt policepeople ….. there's no basis to ban him from running again. And he'd probably help dems if he did.

To do nothing and let politics run it's course and let trump off the hook for what he brought about over the two months after the election, violence or no violence is the same as the hands off approach as the mayor and governor in Portland. It will not cool down until you just say NO and mean it. This was beyond the pale. Post election violence whipped up by an elected politician can become pre-election violence whipped up by the same politician or another. A message must be sent. The message to those politicians that would use their rhetoric and false unprovable accusations to stampede a herd, must be NO.

The DoJ is going to ruin the lives of many of those dip shit felonious insurgents. And they and their supporters will always know the Coward of Queens deserted them to save his own creepy orange skin.

I am an extreme leftist, but as foolish as these Trump supporters are, if they are abused, then we have no democracy and they the government really is illigitimate.
The measure of a democratic republic is not how views you agree with are tolerated, but how well unpopular views are tolerated.
If ALL views are not tolerated, then we have failed and need to start all over again.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

Where did he encourage rioters I wonder?

 

[WTH_Progs?]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

lol.

Do you actually read what you write?

Its like...."I know what he was thinking, I know what he wanted. I know what his intentions were"...

Yet, you don't even know what you had for breakfast this morning....other than some Vaseline, tissue paper and mummy's basement.

White has super powers allowing prog-nation to control his head through a 7th sense.

 

[White 6]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

You are totally wrong.
I hate Trump and am far left of anyone on this board, but clearly it is NOT a lie if Trump believes it.
Trump may be psychotic, but likely he does believe the election was stolen.
And for that he can not be prosecuted.
All beliefs must be defended, including those that seem obviously wrong to us.

And no, if the accident that burns down a house is not obviously negligent, then you are not responsible.
Remember the incident in "Ben Hur" where the family is watching the new Roman governor arrive in Jerusalem, and his sister accidentally causes a roof tile to fall and kill the Roman governor?
Causing something to happen by accident does NOT automatically make you responsible unless you should have known it was likely to happen.
Not only is there no evidence Trump could expect it to lead to an occupation of Congress, but the occupation itself was only petty vandalism and trespassing, not a felony.

I think he knew. He certainly made no attempt to stop it until hours into it. They say he enjoyed it, until it was pointed out he would likely be held responsible, his aids advising a strong statement and begging him for a stronger statement than the first he made.

 

[White 6]

READ: House Impeachment Managers' Brief Outlines Arguments For Senate Trial Of Trump

The House Democrats prosecuting the case against the former president argue he holds "singular responsibility" for the Capitol riot and should be convicted and barred from future office.

www.npr.org

(link to the memo is embedded)

And I don't see the direct connection to Trump. I'd agree he encouraged the rioters, but I'd think he had to have some foreknowledge of the attack or proof that he intended to provoke them to attack.

If the dems wanted impeachment …. fine. It's something they can legally do. Maybe they pretty much had to do it to satisfy their base What political ramifications it has … I don't know.

But I'm not sure Trump needs much defense other than "where's the beef." And rather than calling idiot qanon shamans to say "I did what he said" the dems should just get the vote and move on. The Shaman saying Trump incited him sort of proves Trump's defense of "nobody but a freaking idiot could think I told them to kill Pence, sheeesh. I like Mike, until he deserted me." LOL

He encouraged it is enough. He should not have. He should not have brought up Pence, as Pence was only carrying out his constitutional duties. He should not have been supporting a claim of stolen election and massive fraud leading to defeat after his own lawyers refused to say it in court and all courts had ruled against him. This is not a criminal proceeding. It (unfortunately for him) is about right and wrong for a president, at the time. It is not about free speech. Propagating a lie and whipping up a crowd to support your lie is not protected. especially if it leads to violence. If you are burning some of your trash to keep warm, but it gets out of control and you burn down somebody's house. You are responsible.

Yeah, telling folks to "peacefully and patriotically make their VOICED HEARD", just makes folks want to break something. You're a fucking idiot.

.

No arguing with what they did that day. No arguing trump encouraged them to go their after firing them up at the "stop the steal" rally. Effect usually follows cause.

Your problem is the FBI has proved plans were in place days before the speech. So you have no cause.

.

He had been talking them up with fake "stolen election" lies for months before the stop the steal rally he invited them to on the day both houses of congress were meeting to receive the electoral count. He is responsible.

Lies? So you're saying States like WI, MI, PA, AZ and GA didn't violate their own election laws. Damn you really are delusional. Hell I'll even give you one example. WI has no early in person voting, so some creative county officials invented early in person absentee voting. That's a fucking oxymoron. How the hell does that work or make sense?

.

Take it up with the several states. The court (including the trump appointed judge courts) rule against you.

No they didn't, they have to hear the evidence, they refused to do so. That equates to a NO DECISION.

.

Write a book. Maybe you can sell it.

I'm busy on a song at the moment. I'll let ya know who records it.

.

I hope you write better songs than posts on here or it will be taken as a comedy song. I look forward to hearing it.

I do a pretty good job with poetry as well. But the song I'm working on will be a country song, so I doubt you'll hear it.

.

I used to sing and play guitar in G, C, and D. I am in Tennessee. I've even played and sung "Paradise" by John Prine, on stage to a mostly full house with a decided southern nasal twang, back in the day. I might surprise you.

Well hell, maybe you can help with the music when it comes time. I just do lyrics.

.

Doubt it. Not that creative and haven't pick it up in long enough that my fingertips are almost normal.