The Trump Post-Presidency and Insurrection

I have a vision of a telephone recording at a Mafia boss’s trial:Shoot him in the head, boys !His attorney: Well clearly he meant ‘with a water pistol’ !

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

It's also clear from numerous videos that the insurgents believed that Trump instructed them to perpetrate the insurrection and they clearly thought Cruz and the rest of the traitors in Congress also supported them.

Yep, that must be it, I'm afraid you will make demands.

I don't know, no.My guesses:
-doesn't the government provide one if you don't have one?
-he could always represent himself?

Trump has more than just financial and legal problems. Remember that Solemani guy?His friends do, and they have vowed revenge.

Giuliani did start (and his defence would have been a gift to the prosecution). However he decided that he was a witness, so he stopped.

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.

Only a total complete moron might have thought nothing like the break in could ever be attempted or even thought of.Come on. No one is really that stupid.

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.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to anything for at least the last four years.There is a term for that. Bet when you open your eyes the sun don't shine.

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.

That's because Percy is the smart one and the patient one who can stomach calmly dealing with idiots.

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.