Attention: Anti Trump folks!

[Aratus]

he let the riot happen. that is simply it. he perhaps had no idea someone in the crowd was actually its leader. he obviously
didn't control this crowd of MAGA supporters. at nearly all his other rallies, he has the crowd eating out of his hands. he is in
a gray area, or perhaps he's innocent and guilty at the same time. he didn't care that they were going to vent or act out. i
think he was glued to his TV set after the rally because this is the first time a large group of his people pulled something like
this. as i said, its the first time i've seen Mike Pence with the fear of God in him, knowing he'd have been one of the first real
victims of a classic lynch mob from the 1800s, had they gotten to him. as it is they all then ran rampant & were a mobocracy.

[Aratus]

Am I correct in understanding you that Trump should be impeached on charges that, if found guilty of,
could result in his (((drumrolls)))) NOT BEING ABLE TO RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE AGAIN,
because he made people think he "wink wink nudge nudged" them?

[CORRECTED, assuming a conviction]

[Aratus]

Originally Posted by Invisible Man

"I don't think the standard for impeachment and conviction of a president, so as to remove him from holding office (which is only the loss of a privilege and not a right) should be limited to actual crimes with their legal definitions. The Constitution refers to high crimes and misdemeanors, which is a much broader standard of anything unbefitting of the office, whether against a law or not."

Most legal scholars agree with that position. https://apnews.com/article/a4ac94cbd...dce82d0f60d0a4

This is precisely why THADDEUS STEVENs worded the 11th Article of Impeachment in that broad & all
encompassing manner. Articles 1 to 10 were very specific. It is also why POTUS 17 could fight back....


"ARTICLE 11. That the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and his oath of office, and in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, did, heretofore, to wit: On the 18th day of August, 1866, at the city of Washington, and in the District of Columbia, by public speech, declare and affirm in substance, that the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States was not a Congress of the United States authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative power under the same, but on the contrary, was a Congress of only part of the States, thereby denying and intending to deny, that the legislation of said Congress was valid or obligatory upon him, the said Andrew Johnson, except in so far as he saw fit to approve the same, and also thereby denying the power of the said Thirty-ninth Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. And in pursuance of said declaration, the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, afterwards, to wit: On the 21st day of February 1868, at the city of Washington, D.C., did, unlawfully and in disregard of the requirements of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, attempt to prevent the execution of an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,” passed March 2, 1867, by unlawfully devising and contriving and attempting to devise and contrive means by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate to concur in the suspension theretofore made by the said Andrew Johnson of said Edwin M. Stanton from said office of Secretary for the Department of War; and also by further unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive means then and there to prevent the execution of an act entitled “An act making appropriations for the support of the army for the fiscal year ending June 30,1868, and for other purposes,” approved March 20, 1867. And also to prevent the execution of an act entitled “An act to provide for the more efficient government of the Rebel States,” passed March 2, 1867. Whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then, to wit, on the 21st day of February, 1868, at the city of Washington, commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office."

[kahless]

not directly. nothing said at the rally. none of the quotes normally would be enough to send total strangers into action in unison.
which then suggests the rioters were not total strangers to each other. it does look like he provided a way for them to meet up,
and stood back as they gathered up the resolve to do what they did. i think he could have quieted them all down, or maybe been
honest with them. as it stands now, they could have been talked to, and the situation might have been defused. i think he knew
what they possibly might do, but he let them do it. he didn't talk them out of it. he let the situation fester. he vented, they took
everything literally, and felt he was backing them up to the 100 percentile. he wasn't. he simply played games with their emotions.

he let the riot happen. that is simply it. he perhaps had no idea someone in the crowd was actually its leader. he obviously
didn't control this crowd of MAGA supporters. at nearly all his other rallies, he has the crowd eating out of his hands. he is in
a gray area, or perhaps he's innocent and guilty at the same time. he didn't care that they were going to vent or act out. i
think he was glued to his TV set after the rally because this is the first time a large group of his people pulled something like
this. as i said, its the first time i've seen Mike Pence with the fear of God in him, knowing he'd have been one of the first real
victims of a classic lynch mob from the 1800s, had they gotten to him. as it is they all then ran rampant & were a mobocracy.

In these two quotes, you describe it more along the lines I was actually thinking than when I wrote my last post in this thread.

[Aratus]

From the very bottom of ARTICLE 11 ----------- "And also to prevent the execution of an act entitled “An act to provide for the more efficient government of the Rebel States,” passed March 2, 1867. Whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then, to wit, on the 21st day of February, 1868, at the city of Washington, commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office."

THE FIRING OF EDWIN STANTON WAS A "HIGH MISDEMEANOR" ... i.e the TENURE of OFFICE ACT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBNwqbBR-_M

[Aratus]

In these two quotes, you describe it more along the lines I was actually thinking than when I wrote my last post in this thread.

I really don't know if Donald Trump is innocent or guilty. Sen. Mitch McConnell
himself is unsure as to the ultimate outcome. He said this recently. I usually don't
agree with the senior Senator from KENTUCKY, so i'm rather surprised i arrived
at something he knows by heart. I'm trying to go by a literal 1800s take on all this,
not something more 20th Century. I don't want to revisit Monica L's dress at all...


Bill Clinton's impeachment is the OTHER impeachment. POTUS level impeachment.

[phill4paul]

you have to worry about whether they would read between the lines

So nothing annnnnd....

it does look like he provided a way for them to meet up,

nothing.

Lolol.

[Anti Federalist]

So, after three pages now, is it safe to say that there is no readily available evidence that suggest or shows or records Trump inciting a riot on 6 Jan?

So, some folks took a stab at it, but I think the universal consensus is that at the very worst he "wink wink - nudge nudged" at a very pissed off crowd of people.

Certainly nothing that would hold up in court.

That's what I figured, but I just wanted to make sure that, hey, who knows, maybe I was missing something.

For the record: I fully and enthusiastically support the mob in this action. Had I been the dude sprawled out in Pelosi's office, I would have $#@! on her desk. (Unconfirmed word is that somebody did that in Chucky's office. I'll buy that man a bourbon and cigar)

Also for the record: God damn the weak, puling GOP establishment and ESPECIALLY the grifters like Alex Jones in particular, who, after decades of bellowing into bullhorns about how "the answer to 1984 is 1776" and other patriot bromides at crowds all over the world, immediately backs off, cries "peace peace peace" and "conspiracy!" when looks like, for a brief millisecond, the status quo, around which he has made a comfortable living, might actually be changing. I've supported that man over the years, donated to his efforts and so on, but $#@! him now...he's dead to me.

They SHOULD be whipping the stupid and apathetic mob into action to stir their stumps and save their lives and their country.

They should own this, embrace it, nurture it and run with it.

Why is the left always and only the ones allowed to whip their people into action.

$#@! that, two can, and had goddamn better start, playing that game.

[Aratus]

[kahless hath a cherry picked quote]
So nothing annnnnd....

nothing.
[aratus hath a cherry picked quote]

Lolol.

LUV.... you and Mayor Rudy do have enuff LEGAL EAGLE brain cells between the two of you
whereby you can pull off the legal equivalent of a Senate fillibuster for several months, which
would let TRUMP hire a third good lawyer, who'd then take over the case and cut the diamond
in the rough to a glittering perfection. Trump motormouths. Someone who can motormouth in
a legal manner can create a case that is akin to watching paint dry. Add lil factoids into the mix
and both Donnie Trump Senior and Wily OLE Mitch will be very happy. Trump plans to POTUS run.

[phill4paul]

LUV.... you and Mayor Rudy do have enuff LEGAL EAGLE brain cells between the two of you
whereby you can pull off the legal equivalent of a Senate fillibuster for several months, which
would let TRUMP hire a third good lawyer, who'd then take over the case and cut the diamond
in the rough to a glittering perfection. Trump motormouths. Someone who can motormouth in
a legal manner can create a case that is akin to watching paint dry. Add lil factoids into the mix
and both Donnie Trump Senior and Wily OLE Mitch will be very happy. Trump plans to POTUS run.

That was the $#@!ing SUM. You had nothing. Admit it.

[Aratus]

My point about semi-racist and often very ignorant or bigoted sounding Number 17.....

IMOHO were i to grade PRESIDENTIAL RECONSTRUCTION a letter grade for what it did,

as if its a FINAL exam essay, knowing what i know of AM HIST 101... then CONGRESSIONAL

RECONSTRUCTION might hypothetically be a B- or B+ rather than a totally great and vast

improvement. Andrew Johnson did have his managerial skills. So did the U.S Congress.

[Aratus]

That was the $#@!ing SUM. You had nothing. Admit it.

THADDEUS STEVENS was a much better lawyer than most of his contemporaries.
I actually have an ancestor who was a British Barrister in the early 1800s who did
argue at the Old Bailey. YES and NO. THADDEUS STEVENs and POTUS ANDREW
JOHNSON are of a near to equal level of awareness concerning our Constitution. I
admit i'm giving one a take on things that has its echoes of the 1715 Riot Act. Poor
A.J was 100 blamed for the riot that broke out in New Orleans, even though it was as
bad as the riot in NYC after Gettysburg. Hence my C+ on a paper that normally is an
A- if you factor in that he was an adult back then who had to be taught in order to read.
WHEN THE RADICAL REPUBLICANs take him to task over New Orleans, they don't jump
all over HONEST ABE for the chaos. HAD LINCOLN LIVED, had he made the same basic
decisions that A.J did, becuz wartime TENN was a template for the states getting their
CITIZENSHIP back, THADDEUS STEVENs would have tossed in a reference to NYC in
ARTICLE 11 ---- Clearly except for one or two mistakes, A.J had managed to govern the
formerly "REBEL" states. Clearly he was not an A- or an A or an A+ or even an A++

[Anti Federalist]

[CORRECTED, assuming a conviction]

Not quite, see Ritter v. United States.

Granted it would be tortuous route, but impeachment could begin a process, based on no real evidence, that could lead to Trump at the end of rope.

Well, if nothing else, the system has made it brightly, crystal, supernova on winter's night clear to all us $#@!s, just who 'de boss on 'dis hear plantation is.

[Anti Federalist]

LUV.... you and Mayor Rudy do have enuff LEGAL EAGLE brain cells between the two of you
whereby you can pull off the legal equivalent of a Senate fillibuster for several months, which
would let TRUMP hire a third good lawyer, who'd then take over the case and cut the diamond
in the rough to a glittering perfection. Trump motormouths. Someone who can motormouth in
a legal manner can create a case that is akin to watching paint dry. Add lil factoids into the mix
and both Donnie Trump Senior and Wily OLE Mitch will be very happy. Trump plans to POTUS run.

Trump will be tried by the new Senate, that Chucky has stated will remove the filibuster rules.

[Aratus]

So, some folks took a stab at it, but I think the universal consensus is that at the very worst he "wink wink - nudge nudged" at a very pissed off crowd of people.

Certainly nothing that would hold up in court.

That's what I figured, but I just wanted to make sure that, hey, who knows, maybe I was missing something.

For the record: I fully and enthusiastically support the mob in this action. Had I been the dude sprawled out in Pelosi's office, I would have $#@! on her desk. (Unconfirmed word is that somebody did that in Chucky's office. I'll buy that man a bourbon and cigar)

Also for the record: God damn the weak, puling GOP establishment and ESPECIALLY the grifters like Alex Jones in particular, who, after decades of bellowing into bullhorns about how "the answer to 1984 is 1776" and other patriot bromides at crowds all over the world, immediately backs off, cries "peace peace peace" and "conspiracy!" when looks like, for a brief millisecond, the status quo, around which he has made a comfortable living, might actually be changing. I've supported that man over the years, donated to his efforts and so on, but $#@! him now...he's dead to me.

They SHOULD be whipping the stupid and apathetic mob into action to stir their stumps and save their lives and their country.

They should own this, embrace it, nurture it and run with it.

Why is the left always and only the ones allowed to whip their people into action.

$#@! that, two can, and had goddamn better start, playing that game.

AF ---- You do have a point. BILL WELD is more Libertarian than is Donald Trump, who is just a Libertine.
As you may have seen, i put the full text of the 1715 Riot Act on here, to explain Trump's failures. I do admit
Doctor Ron Paul and maybe even DOCTOR RAND PAUL are more LIBERTARIAN than is BILL WELD. I know
this full well, your take on 1776. It has more backbone than this musical. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwjI1N-GUqA

[kahless]

So nothing annnnnd....

nothing.

Lolol.

Technically nothing and I think anyone paying attention knows that. Of course they are going to spin it otherwise to win over the masses, because they are pissed for having to hide under their desks and to prevent a second term. Probably the first time they had such fear of the people to that extent which you would think they would think twice going forward after that. Apparently not considering impeachment.

[Aratus]

Not quite, see Ritter v. United States.

Granted it would be tortuous route, but impeachment could begin a process, based on no real evidence, that could lead to Trump at the end of rope.

Well, if nothing else, the system has made it brightly, crystal, supernova on winter's night clear to all us $#@!s, just who 'de boss on 'dis hear plantation is.

LUV..... Northern Ireland had its Plantation system, too. The SERFs, SLAVes, Bond-Servants who didst labor
on the same, well long before the LABOUR PARTY comes into being, those humble souls....were Catholics. I am
Northern Irish, i have O'Neill blood, an ancestor who was a great leader prior to the year 1600 has a granddaughter
a male ancestor of mine married. My family in the north, in the area they lived in, were some of the heirs of the
last great O'Neill HIGH KINGs. I am kin to the late Tip O'Neill. I am 1/4th Scots Irish, 1/4th Southern Irish.
I have close Protestant and Catholic Irish cousins. I framed Trump's pure hapless idiocy in HIGH WHIG and AULD
1700s TORY terms, as if Edmund Burke can debate Thomas Paine. I may go REFORM Party if i try for a public office..

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..........

James I&IV gave an ancestor of mine a Plantation land deed
in the North of Ireland in the early 1600s. My ancestor had been
one of his Scottish Courtiers. Trump's Scottish mother has humble
fishermen as her people. her ancestors are from those islands who
backed BONNIE PRINCE CHARLIE. He's half Scottish.
i'm Half Yankee. Not that titles really matter over here, in the USA.

[Aratus]

Trump will be tried by the new Senate, that Chucky has stated will remove the filibuster rules.

maybe the NEW rule book has Senators being more short winded, but in the course of the TRIAL, i presume things are

done in a manner akin to 1868 and 1999, and that lawyers can talk until the cows come home in the evening, if they both

began to speak at the crack of dawn!!! tis damn close to being like a classic filibuster.... Say Whot!

[Sonny Tufts]

It’s precisely because conduct warranting impeachment doesn’t need to constitute criminal conduct that the charge against Trump makes sense. While his January 6 speech, standing alone, probably doesn’t amount to inciting insurrection under the criminal statute, his actions preceding the speech coupled with it certainly amounts to impeachable conduct. Here’s the entire impeachment article (emphasis is mine):

Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Article of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE I: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Further, section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States from “hold[ing] any office … under the United States”. In his conduct while President of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States, in that:

On January 6, 2021, pursuant to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives, and the Senate met at the United States Capitol for a Joint Session of Congress to count the votes of the Electoral College. In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, DC. There, he reiterated false claims that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide”. He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged—and foreseeably resulted in—lawless action at the Capitol, such as: “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore”. Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts.

President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.

In all this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Additional conduct not specifically mentioned in the Article but clearly encompassed by the phrase “his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election” (and also alluded to by Trump in his speech) was his effort to have Pence not accept certified electoral votes from certain states, something Pence had absolutely no authority to do under the Constitution. Fortunately, Pence had the integrity to recognize this and to send a letter to Congress on January 6 in which he explained he has no such authority, thereby causing some of the rioters to scream for his death.

There is no question that Trump's conduct warranted impeachment.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

It’s precisely because conduct warranting impeachment doesn’t need to constitute criminal conduct that the charge against Trump makes sense. While his January 6 speech, standing alone, probably doesn’t amount to inciting insurrection under the criminal statute, his actions preceding the speech coupled with it certainly amounts to impeachable conduct. Here’s the entire impeachment article (emphasis is mine):



Additional conduct not specifically mentioned in the Article but clearly encompassed by the phrase “his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election” (and also alluded to by Trump in his speech) was his effort to have Pence not accept certified electoral votes from certain states, something Pence had absolutely no authority to do under the Constitution. Fortunately, Pence had the integrity to recognize this and to send a letter to Congress on January 6 in which he explained he has no such authority, thereby causing some of the rioters to scream for his death.

There is no question that Trump's conduct warranted impeachment.

How do you know his accusations of widespread voter fraud was wrong?

[DamianTV]

How do you know his accusations of widespread voter fraud was wrong?

Very few actually "know". Most people make the mistake of thinking "what they believe is real". Thats how you TRICK people. That is how Mass Hypnosis works.

This is also the Divide and Conquer strategy so people pay more attention to proving themselves right in an argument of ANY TOPIC than looking at who is controlling the narrative. Those controlling the narrative are the ones causing real problems.

If we are to stay on topic of Voter Fraud, I must ask WHY IS THE EVIDENCE BEING DESTROYED? Why are Dominion Machines being DESTROYED? UNDER COURT ORDER? Why are we "not allowed" to observe the evidence? That makes me really stop caring about the Evidence as we now need to look at those who say "we are not allowed" as if it is their permission to grant. If we have a group of people saying "do not examine any evidence" then THEY themselves ARE the Evidence of Voter Fraud.

Remember, Divide and Conquer. WHO is telling us to disregard evidence? ANY reasonable person would believe that if there is no Voter Fraud that they should have NO ISSUE with us examining the evidence in order to exonerate them, right? Here is my PROOF OF INNOCENCE. We have NONE of that. WHO is trying to prevent us from examining evidence is the one who is DIVIDING AND CONQUERING us because we do have in-fighting on beliefs that what we see is what reality is.

[Invisible Man]

How do you know his accusations of widespread voter fraud was wrong?

There may have been widespread voter fraud. But Trump didn't just say it might have happened. He made a lot of specific claims about facts that allegedly proved that it did, which were provably false.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

There may have been widespread voter fraud. But Trump didn't just say it might have happened. He made a lot of specific claims about facts that allegedly proved that it did, which were provably false.

Please enlighten me. What claims about election fraud that Trump Stated at the DC Speech are provably wrong?

[oyarde]

Of course there was widespread fraud . Problem is you have to do something about it on the front end . That didnt happen , instead things were made easier for the fraud by the supposed fear of the hoax wuhan . Once its in your not going to be able to undo it . Overall though . The communist tendencies of pelosi - scumer - harris and biden truly do represent half of america . Not much your going to be able to about that either .

[Invisible Man]

Please enlighten me. What claims about election fraud that Trump Stated at the DC Speech are provably wrong?

1. He claimed that Pence could send the electoral votes back to the states to recertify and that doing that would make Trump the winner of the election.
2. He claimed that Pennsylvania had 205,000 more ballots than they did voters.
3. He claimed that Pennsylvania's official vote count included 10,000 votes that had illegally been received after election day.
4. He claimed that thousands of dead people voted in Pennsylvania and Georgia.
5. He claimed that poll watches in Fulton County Georgia were told to leave under false pretenses of a pipe burst, at which time Democrat operatives produced boxes of fraudulent votes out from under a table.
6. He claimed that 66,000 votes in Georgia were cast by people under the legal voting age.
7. He claimed that late in the night before his speech Georgia officials had mysteriously found 50,000 more ballots for their Senate elections.
8. He claimed that in Arizona 36,000 votes were cast by noncitizens.
9. He claimed that in Arizona 11,600 more ballots were counted than there are actual voters.
10. He claimed that 150,000 people registered to vote in Maricopa County Arizona after the registration deadline.

All of those claims are false. And that's just from his speech on January 6th. He repeatedly made claims like those over and over in speeches and tweets over the past 2 months.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

1. He claimed that Pence could send the electoral votes back to the states to recertify and that doing that would make Trump the winner of the election.
2. He claimed that Pennsylvania had 205,000 more ballots than they did voters.
3. He claimed that Pennsylvania's official vote count included 10,000 votes that had illegally been received after election day.
4. He claimed that thousands of dead people voted in Pennsylvania and Georgia.
5. He claimed that poll watches in Fulton County Georgia were told to leave under false pretenses of a pipe burst, at which time Democrat operatives produced boxes of fraudulent votes out from under a table.
6. He claimed that 66,000 votes in Georgia were cast by people under the legal voting age.
7. He claimed that late in the night before his speech Georgia officials had mysteriously found 50,000 more ballots for their Senate elections.
8. He claimed that in Arizona 36,000 votes were cast by noncitizens.
9. He claimed that in Arizona 11,600 more ballots were counted than there are actual voters.
10. He claimed that 150,000 people registered to vote in Maricopa County Arizona after the registration deadline.

All of those claims are false. And that's just from his speech on January 6th. He repeatedly made claims like those over and over in speeches and tweets over the past 2 months.

People have to get their data from someplace. How do you know Trump was wrong about those things? What makes you think the fact checkers you use are right? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...20-Full-Report

[Invisible Man]

People have to get their data from someplace. How do you know Trump was wrong about those things? What makes you think the fact checkers you use are right? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...20-Full-Report

We would need to go down the list one by one. We can do that.

Go ahead and pick one if you think Trump was telling the truth and let's dig into it.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

We would need to go down the list one by one. We can do that.

Go ahead and pick one if you think Trump was telling the truth and let's dig into it.

If everything he said was true would he still be considered guilty of inciting a riot?

[Invisible Man]

If everything he said was true would he still be considered guilty of inciting a riot?

I never said I considered him guilty of inciting a riot. I said that if he were charged for that criminally in court and I were on the jury I would find him innocent.

But consider what it would mean for everything he said to have been true, especially the first point I referred to. You're asking about a hypothetical situation in which the facts of the world were different than they are and in which the US Constitution prescribed a different way of determining the US President than what it actually does.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

I never said I considered him guilty of inciting a riot. I said that if he were charged for that criminally in court and I were on the jury I would find him innocent.

But consider what it would mean for everything he said to have been true, especially the first point I referred to. You're asking about a hypothetical situation in which the facts of the world were different than they are and in which the US Constitution prescribed a different way of determining the US President than what it actually does.

Thank God I am not a constitutional lawyer. I heard some argue that the only date in the Constitution was Jan 20. If that is the case anything could have been said on Jan 6. I am certain that whatever I think would not be embraced universally. Too much hypocrisy. Are you saying that the Constitution states that the VP has to accept votes on Jan 6?