Breaking: Trump has no immunity from Jan. 6 prosecution, appeals court rules

[Deluge]

13 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:

So far the Criminal Con Man Grifter in Chief...

Nobody believes you cultists. You have majority power over the courts now, but America is wising up and it won't be too long before the citizenry takes you f*ckers down. 

[Rebound]

1 minute ago, Deluge said:

Nobody believes you cultists. You have majority power over the courts now, but America is wising up and it won't be too long before the citizenry takes you f*ckers down. 

The Federal Courts are filled with Republican appointees and the US Supreme Court is 6-3 Republican appointed. This appeal, denying Trump immunity, was unanimous, including a Republican appointee.  
 

Can you show us where the U.S. Constitution says a President is immune from all laws? Cause I can show you where it specifically says the President CAN be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office.  It’s right in Article 1.

[GroundskeeperWillie]

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

And yes, incitement is, in some circumstances, a crime.

So under what circumstances is incitement a crime?

And further, how do you define incitement?

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

And Trump should also be held accountable for what he did to cause the attack.

Quote me the exact words from Trump himself that you think made him responsible for the attack.  And no, don't quote me statements or charges from a court.  I want to hear from you.

 

I don't know what Trump said exactly, but if he merely said, "you need to do something about the stolen election or your country will be gone forever", that is NOT incitement.

[Rebound]

8 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Well, Fox started to, but it didn't take long for demonic cultists to shut them down. 

It's going to take a lot more courage than those guys have to bring this to light. 

Demonic cultists? Be quiet, deluded cultist! 

[Deluge]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

The Federal Courts are filled with Republican appointees and the US Supreme Court is 6-3 Republican appointed. This appeal, denying Trump immunity, was unanimous, including a Republican appointee.  
 

Can you show us where the U.S. Constitution says a President is immune from all laws? Cause I can show you where it specifically says the President CAN be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office.  It’s right in Article 1.

Sorry, RINOs are just as bad as democrats, and in order to stave off death threats, the SC can only let themselves get it right occassionally. 

Trump committed crimes according to his political enemies, and that's where the problem lies: You abusers are misusing the constitution, which comes as zero surprise. 

[Deluge]

3 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Demonic cultists? Be quiet, deluded cultist! 

See, the problem right now is that you cultists are wielding way too much power. Nobody can REALLY full court press this thing without getting treated like Fox, Donald Trump, or the wrongfully accused sitting in prison. 

That needs to change, of course, but I think America is wising up, so I'm encouraged. 

[Hodad]

12 minutes ago, GroundskeeperWillie said:

So under what circumstances is incitement a crime?

And further, how do you define incitement?

Quote me the exact words from Trump himself that you think made him responsible for the attack.  And no, don't quote me statements or charges from a court.  I want to hear from you.

 

I don't know what Trump said exactly, but if he merely said, "you need to do something about the stolen election or your country will be gone forever", that is NOT incitement.

If you don't know what he said, I'm not sure how you've come to any kind of position on his level of responsibility? You should probably go read that speech. He said A LOT in his rambling incoherent style. Early on he encouraged peaceful protest. But then, critically, he spent an hour telling the crowd that the election was stolen through fraud, and he told them they had to fight like hell, and he told them that they had to march to the Capitol right now and "stop the steal" or they wouldn't have a country anymore.

He very much created an existential crisis in the minds of those people. He told them that a massive crime was in progress. That their country was being "stolen" and that they had to fight and take action now. And he told them where to stop it. And he told them when they needed to stop it. And all of it was a lie.  

Of course the mob, believing Trump, was going to take desperate action. The people who have been tried for their actions expressed as much. And many have expressed anger about being duped. 

 

Think of it like "swatting." 

[GroundskeeperWillie]

9 minutes ago, Hodad said:

If you don't know what he said, I'm not sure how you've come to any kind of position on his level of responsibility? You should probably go read that speech. He said A LOT in his rambling incoherent style. Early on he encouraged peaceful protest. But then, critically, he spent an hour telling the crowd that the election was stolen through fraud, and he told them they had to fight like hell, and he told them that they had to march to the Capitol right now and "stop the steal" or they wouldn't have a country anymore.

He very much created an existential crisis in the minds of those people. He told them that a massive crime was in progress. That their country was being "stolen" and that they had to fight and take action now. And he told them where to stop it. And he told them when they needed to stop it. And all of it was a lie.  

Of course the mob, believing Trump, was going to take desperate action. The people who have been tried for their actions expressed as much. And many have expressed anger about being duped. 

 

Think of it like "swatting." 

So, if I told you that a massive crime was in progress. That your country was being stolen and that you had to fight and take action now. And I told you where to stop it. And I told you when you needed to stop it. And would you go and storm the capitol? No, I am sure you wouldn't.  And why is that?  That's right, it's because you have agency.  And you can and do decide not to listen to me.  The same thing applies to the protestors.  They are adults who have agency, so they should be the only ones responsible for the attack, not Trump.

 

By the way, you didn't define incitement. So I am still waiting on this one.

Edited February 8 by GroundskeeperWillie

[Hodad]

58 minutes ago, GroundskeeperWillie said:

So, if I told you that a massive crime was in progress. That your country was being stolen and that you had to fight and take action now. And I told you where to stop it. And I told you when you needed to stop it. And would you go and storm the capitol? No, I am sure you wouldn't.  And why is that?  That's right, it's because you have agency.  And you can and do decide not to listen to me.  The same thing applies to the protestors.  They are adults who have agency, so they should be the only ones responsible for the attack, not Trump.

 

By the way, you didn't define incitement. So I am still waiting on this one.

I'm sure you think you're making a reasonable argument, but again, the "question" of shared responsibility goes back hundreds of years (or longer) in Western legal tradition. It's not really a question any longer. It's both common sense and legal precedent. So, respectfully, what you're doing is like the person who shows up on the last day of a philosophy class and then wants to belabor a point that everyone else worked through on day one. It doesn't mean it's an invalid question, but it's remedial. You're not going to overturn a massive body of law with your ponderings.

Yes, I have agency. Nearly everyone has agency. But the decision to act is predicated on informational inputs for which other parties can be responsible. This is basic stuff. No I, personally, wouldn't act on information from you or from Trump. But if it were someone credible in an urgent circumstance, I certainly might. If I saw a woman struggling with a man and she cried "rape!" I might assault the perceived assailant to eliminate an immediate threat. If it were true, I'd be a hero. If the woman had lied, she would also--and perhaps exclusively--be liable for the assault. Again, this is long-settled stuff.

I didn't define it because it's not relevant. Casually, incitement is trying to compel or persuade people to take urgent action. In a legal sense, the action is to commit a crime. It's not really necessary to have MY definition of commonly understood words or phrases. You could parse that for hours. Your opinion of whether or not Trump is guilty of a crime WRT incitement should be based on the applicable federal legal code. Go read the indictment.

 

[GroundskeeperWillie]

34 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I'm sure you think you're making a reasonable argument, but again, the "question" of shared responsibility goes back hundreds of years (or longer) in Western legal tradition. It's not really a question any longer. It's both common sense and legal precedent. So, respectfully, what you're doing is like the person who shows up on the last day of a philosophy class and then wants to belabor a point that everyone else worked through on day one. It doesn't mean it's an invalid question, but it's remedial. You're not going to overturn a massive body of law with your ponderings.

I did not ask you for a lesson in jurisprudence.

34 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yes, I have agency. Nearly everyone has agency. But the decision to act is predicated on informational inputs for which other parties can be responsible. This is basic stuff. No I, personally, wouldn't act on information from you or from Trump. But if it were someone credible in an urgent circumstance, I certainly might.

Should people take responsibility for their own actions, yes or no.

34 minutes ago, Hodad said:

If I saw a woman struggling with a man and she cried "rape!" I might assault the perceived assailant to eliminate an immediate threat. If it were true, I'd be a hero. If the woman had lied, she would also--and perhaps exclusively--be liable for the assault. Again, this is long-settled stuff.

That would not be incitement.

 

I am starting to think you don't know what incitement is.

34 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I didn't define it because it's not relevant. Casually, incitement is trying to compel or persuade people to take urgent action. In a legal sense, the action is to commit a crime. 

If I told my boyfriend someone at work was bothering me, and I said, you'd better do something about it and go to my work place to do it now, otherwise I will lose my job.  So he went and murdered that coworker.  Have I incited him?  Maybe all I wanted him to do was to confront that coworker and give her a good scolding.  I didn't tell my boyfriend to kill her.  But under your incitement laws, somehow I am responsible for the murder even though I never told anybody to murder the coworker.

 

The problem I have with incitement is that it's too loosely defined.  Its application and interpretation are entirely subjective.  It can be used to cover a lot of activities and has potential to be abused by legal authorities.

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, GroundskeeperWillie said:

I did not ask you for a lesson in jurisprudence.

Should people take responsibility for their own actions, yes or no.

That would not be incitement.

 

I am starting to think you don't know what incitement is.

If I told my boyfriend someone at work was bothering me, and I said, you'd better do something about it and go to my work place to do it now, otherwise I will lose my job.  So he went and murdered that coworker.  Have I incited him?  Maybe all I wanted him to do was to confront that coworker and give her a good scolding.  I didn't tell my boyfriend to kill her.  But under your incitement laws, somehow I am responsible for the murder even though I never told anybody to murder the coworker.

 

The problem I have with incitement is that it's too loosely defined.  Its application and interpretation are entirely subjective.  It can be used to cover a lot of activities and has potential to be abused by legal authorities.

Okay, well have fun pondering. You're welcome, if you so choose, to hold the heterodox opinion that people shouldn't be liable for inciting criminal action.  But it's just not relevant to the reality of Trump facing liability under established law.

 

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, GroundskeeperWillie said:

So, if I told you that a massive crime was in progress. That your country was being stolen and that you had to fight and take action now. And I told you where to stop it. And I told you when you needed to stop it. And would you go and storm the capitol? No, I am sure you wouldn't.  And why is that?  That's right, it's because you have agency.  And you can and do decide not to listen to me.  The same thing applies to the protestors.  They are adults who have agency, so they should be the only ones responsible for the attack, not Trump.

 

By the way, you didn't define incitement. So I am still waiting on this one.

Trump KNEW they DID NOT have agency and foolishly believed everything he says because they were "my (his) people." AKA the MAGA CULT. Duh.

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Trump KNEW they DID NOT have agency and foolishly believed everything he says because they were "my (his) people." AKA the MAGA CULT. Duh.

Cite? No? Hmmm

[Caswell Thomas]

10 hours ago, Deluge said:

Nobody believes you cultists. You have majority power over the courts now, but America is wising up and it won't be too long before the citizenry takes you f*ckers down. 

So eloquent a melancholy speaker deserves his just reward, just be sure they are there.

[Deluge]

3 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:

So eloquent a melancholy speaker deserves his just reward, just be sure they are there.

Thank you, CT. 

You know, for an old f*ck, you sure sound like a Gen Z'er.

[Caswell Thomas]

19 hours ago, Deluge said:

Thank you, CT. 

You know, for an old f*ck, you sure sound like a Gen Z'er.

🤐

[Caswell Thomas]

On 2/8/2024 at 6:42 AM, GroundskeeperWillie said:

So under what circumstances is incitement a crime?

And further, how do you define incitement?

Quote me the exact words from Trump himself that you think made him responsible for the attack.  And no, don't quote me statements or charges from a court.  I want to hear from you.

 

I don't know what Trump said exactly, but if he merely said, "you need to do something about the stolen election or your country will be gone forever", that is NOT incitement.

He said quote " go up to the Capitol and fight like hell because if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a Country anymore. " 

[ironstone]

This is priceless and 100% accurate.

 

[Rebound]

On 2/8/2024 at 10:17 AM, GroundskeeperWillie said:

So, if I told you that a massive crime was in progress. That your country was being stolen and that you had to fight and take action now. And I told you where to stop it. And I told you when you needed to stop it. And would you go and storm the capitol? No, I am sure you wouldn't.  And why is that?  That's right, it's because you have agency.  And you can and do decide not to listen to me.  The same thing applies to the protestors.  They are adults who have agency, so they should be the only ones responsible for the attack, not Trump.

 

By the way, you didn't define incitement. So I am still waiting on this one.

So Hitler didn’t kill any Jews, he was only giving out orders, so that makes it ok?

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

So Hitler didn’t kill any Jews, he was only giving out orders, so that makes it ok?

Well there's the rub - nobody can actually show trump gave any actual orders for j6 to happen as it did.  So now you're stuck with this sort of "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" argument.  And i'm not sure it'll stand up in court like that, and in any case it's very different than hitler's circumstance