The Trump Post-Presidency and Insurrection

I read every word, very carefully.Everything Trump said was very amazingly & unambiguously about voting and political engagement THAT IN NO WAY ENCOURAGED VIOLENCE. I admit that I read the whole thing and kept everything in its context.I was shocked at how legal the speech truley was.Trump made one mistake, later though. The break in happened at about 2:05. He waited till 2:38 to explicitly tell people to be peaceful. His first Tweet, around 224, failed to mention such a warning, instead he attacked Pence.That is something that possibly could be used against him.He did not clearly state that the break in was part of the violence, at 2:38, but I see a call against violence as also a call against the break in.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

I am at work and will check some context when I have more timeI don't think that the later riot is relevant context though.I will post more thoughts later

Percy, my reading of the immediate context, in your quote, requires me to reach an interpretation that Trump sent people to protest and it was 100% aimed at the Republican congressional members. Trump told the protesters to completely avoid the Democrats.So the Trump Instigation theory is weakened since the Capital Invaders targeted Democratic leader's offices. It was very much out of sync with what Trump was communicating.There was not a hint, in Trump's speech, at getting protesters to use illegal physical activity and there was to be no attempt to make any Democratic member of Congress change his or her mind. Trump wanted a VERY large crown of supporters to make a statement by being present in massive numbers. When he uses terms like " give our party members the strength", it is a common rhetorical idiom used to describe a massive show of the population backing a cause and it is meant to be something that creates wider popular support ( which a riot and break in would not), or at least an illusion of (in this case)national support, for a position.The 'fighting", "fight", and "fighter" metaphors are so common in a political context, that the words use themselves should automatically be considered to be about a peaceful use of democratic process powers(absent anything in the context that would indicate forceful physical activity against a person or property).It would never be interpreted as an act of illegal physical activity if not for the high-stakes partisan political spin & posturing.

Does the law put Trump at risk for negligence even if he is admitted to have not created the incitement in thefirst place?There is a possible legal case to make that he did not do enough to stop the unexpected riot, after it started.But, something has been occurring to me since I started following this issue a few days ago:Perhaps it is not his LEGAL responsibility to quell the riot/uprising/break-in, if he is recognized to have had no idea ( as none of us had any idea,right?) anything like the break in could ever be attempted or even thought of. I think we would all admit that this whole episode, which started around 2 PM Jan 6, never crossed Trump's mind not did it cross any of our minds.It might explain why the anti-Trump crowd is so intent on claiming that an "incitement" charge is such a slam-dunk case when it so obviously is not. Criminal charges can be filed up and piled up, including many diverse and various ones. Only one has to win the support of a jury of peers. Perhaps the potential charges that actually have a legal chance (negligence is one) are rendered null if the incitement accusation is moot?Thoughts?Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

I confess that I have not been paying attention to anything since the Georgia Senate races.Until a few days ago.During the Georgia races, Trump was foaming about bad Republicans and seemed to be trying to create a GOP civil war (don't twist the "war" part of my parlance! Lol, better say that from now on).His Jan 6 speech could be described as an insurrection ( again, don't take that literally. Lol) call toward, NOT THE CAPITAL, but Republican primary polling booths.He was still in a mode of operation that was devoted to laying groundwork that would be the stage for future GOP civil wars.His Jan 6 speech was actually a Fuck The Non Trump Republicans speech, laced with a big push to end the use of electronic voting machines.(Read it without your blinders on)As for possible before-the-fact prognostications about a Jan 6 break in, I admit that I have not one but of awareness of any such thing.

I admit that I was winging it UNTIL Percy posted his reply (post 28 in this thread).I am sorry to have to admit that I was posting on my own ignorance combined with intuition until he saved me from myself.I nominate post 28 as the post of the year.(My posts were no longer clouded in ignorance after Percy's post 28)God was I stupid. My only defense is that I thought other posters would fill in my blanks, but it turned out to be Percy and Percy Percy alone.

I still don't see how on earth you can find a call for violence in that speech?He was saying "primary the hell" out of Republicans like Liz Cheney . And that was in the immediate context of his call to "fight" and "march". I wish I could paste on my phone. I could easily show it.Pretty amusing that Taq, you ( AzPaul), and Tanypteryx used Liz Cheney's impeachment quote as some sort of example of evidence that Trump was guilty of insurrection. See post 17 and the next 10.LOLLOLLOLShe took a speech that called for her getting defeated in the Republican primary, and turned it into a false accusation about sedition.And that was the broad theme of Trumps infamous Jan 6 speech: defeating ("weak") certain Republicans.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Just curious:Did you actually read the speech?I can believe you did, and can believe you did not.I understand typical human mindsets, so I can easily believe you did.I am just wondering what the exact mindset is that I am dealing with here.

What was post 17 then?

I remember when you and me went over this issue of post 17 (and 21) before.You said it was nothing you said, and I accepted it AT THE TIME.But there was something I just noticed:You clicked on the agreement disc for post 17. Taq posted it but you agreed.Ironic.So YOU are the dishonest pile of 'xxxIronically...Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

My whole point from the start involved my opposition to a political trial, among other things?Liz Cheney voted for impeachment because she was a major target in Trump's Jan6 call to March.No Democrats were not a target, just Republicans like her.For purely political reasons, Cheney voted for impeachment, and her reasons were a case of pure dishonesty (based on the quote I saw, though perhaps there were other reasons)Democrats were not a target(or they weren't supposed to be the politicians to convince during the march)of the Jan 6 call to march speech , but all House Democrats voted for impeachment (10 Republicans did). Why? Political reasons.The Jan 6 call to march speech is NOT a reason for any sort of rational impeachment and/or conviction.It is pure politics.

Make a case for a position you disagree with.I am going to ask the posters here to make a case that the Jan 6 speech is not a criminal act.I can easily find ONE reason for it to be a criminal act: But it would require Al Gore's opinion to carry legal weight.The Al Gore Standard was not stated until around 2006, if I recall correctly.He said there was no intermediate step, after a final Supreme Court decision, between the candidate calling an election stolen, and the resulting violent revolution.So the very act of calling an election "stolen", on Jan 6, the day of the Electoral College vote,, is thus a call for arms.Thus criminal.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

You know that I am REALLY getting stupid desperate, when the (temporary?) lack of critical thinking - almost an environmental condition - causes me to whip out the old homework assignment.You beat me to the punch.Yes:( You idiot, LNA)I don't have much hope for humanity.

You offered a quote, in your post yesterday, that was very much near the end of his speech.39 words after your quote ended, he offered a sentence (if not his ultimate sentence, it was his penultimate or propenultimate sentence) that stated his reason for the march.You had it highlighted in yellow.It was about who to target. And why.It fit in perfectly with several other major parts of his speech.It was about ignoring Democrats and convincing Republicans.It was an attack on "WEAK" Republicans.Only 38 minor words separated his closing reasons for the march, AND YOUR LONE QUOTE in yesterday's post. Post 45 or 46. Right?

I just wrote down some scattered parts. I will type those in.I need you to paste a much more clustered area for me.Let me give you the first and last sentences of an entire multi-paragraph cluster. Then I want you to paste everything in between.(My spell check caused the spelling issue)