January 6th Hearings

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 655
#631
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,238
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
The claim here is that Trump intended...
Ok, so you can dismiss everything after this. The courts don't mindread a person's intent and then prosecute for thought crimes. Not yet anyway.

"Mens Rea" only applies to an accompanying crime (“actus rea"), which Trump will NEVER be charged with. Ever. So proving intent for an undisclosed crime is  just another kangaroo court stunt.

I'll also refer you to some more historical documents on the Salem Witch trials to show why courts no longer convict on intent alone.
Topic's author
#632
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Ok, so you can dismiss everything after this. The courts don't mindread a person's intent and then prosecute for thought crimes. Not yet anyway. 
Intent in the central element of almost any crime genius. You can go to jail for attempted murder, and it's the literal difference between whether any of the actions prosecutors are looking at with regards to Trump are illegal.

That aside, the legality thing is such a cop out. This thread asks for your opinions as a voter so we're not talking about a court of law here, were talking about the court of public opinion where reason, logic, and common sense are all you need.
#633
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,238
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
we're talking about the court of public opinion where reason, logic, and common sense are all you need.
All of the lynchers of the Salem Witch trials agreed with you.
Topic's author
#634
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
No, they didn't.

The court of public opinion is what determines who enjoys the public's trust. A court of law determines who gets to enjoy their right to freedom. The Salem witch trials was the latter. My point was specifically about the former.

And even if that point were not valid, your post is still childishly stupid. The fact that a bunch of idiots back in the 1600's thought their neighbors were witches has absolutely nothing to do with what is reasonable to conclude regarding the former presidents actions in 2021.

Your responses here are just another example of validation for my views. You have no argument whatsoever to defend the former presidents actions. When confronted with actual facts and logic, all you can do is scramble to dismiss all of it outright by pretending intent is not something we can dive into, despite the fact that we do it not only everywhere in law but also everywhere in life. Making a determination regarding one's intent is the first step towards deciding who to trust in any context.

This is really basic stuff.
#635
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,238
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
by pretending intent is not something we can dive into,
Every yellow journalist agrees with you. It makes good money in the checkout isle, so I have been told.
#636
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,760
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
You have no argument whatsoever to defend the former presidents actions.
defend from what specific claim ?

you mean like this one ?

The claim here is that Trump intended for mob rioters to attack the US Capitol.
just to be perfectly clear, in my personal opinion, trump is a buffoon

however, organizing a protest of the vote certification is just a protest

and it was a protest that was much less "violent" than many other recent protests

this entire situation does not reach the bar of an "attack" or a "coup d'état" or an "insurrection"

it was just a protest

a political protest

For Example, "Paul Allard Hodgkins, the 38-year-old who pleaded guilty on Wednesday to a single count of obstruction of an official proceeding."

notice

the actual charge is not "treason"

the actual charge is not "attempted murder"

the actual charge is not "insurrection"

obstruction of an official proceeding
Topic's author
#637
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
it was just a protest
If you strip away everything that made it more than a protest, what you will have left is "just a protest". That's not an argument, that's not insightful, that's not meaningful.

Protests occur outside the US Capitol every day. Never before has a protest forced congress to evacuate the building.

I gave you point after point after point explaining the claim, the evidence for the claim, and how the evidence supports the claim. All you did was ignore everything I said to repeat your original claim as if all of that has not been debunked. You're not being serious.


For Example, "Paul Allard Hodgkins, the 38-year-old who pleaded guilty on Wednesday to a single count of obstruction of an official proceeding."

notice

the actual charge is not "treason"

the actual charge is not "attempted murder"

the actual charge is not "insurrection"

obstruction of an official proceeding
There have been over a hundred charges filled against January 6th rioters. Please explain what pointing to one example cherry picked out of the bunch accomplishes. What is your logic here?
#638
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,238
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
There have been over a hundred charges filled against January 6th rioters. 
And yet not one minute of the Jan 6 hearings talked about the evidence condemning individual rioters if that minute could be instead used to gossip about Trump.

Heaven forbid a sacrilegious narrative about people making independently bad choices sans Trump got out into the wild. Think about what that could do to our Democrats...cough cough... I mean our Democracy?
#639
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,760
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Please explain what pointing to one example cherry picked
i have no idea what examples you might consider relevant 

feel free to present some examples at your leisure
#640
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,760
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Never before has a protest forced congress to evacuate the building.
protests have occupied government buildings before

i'm not sure why this particular building is any more important
#641
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,238
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
i'm not sure why this particular building is any more important

Temple of the gods.
#642
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,315
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
I'll also refer you to some more historical documents on the Salem Witch trials to show why courts no longer convict on intent alone.
They do convict on circumstantial evidence.
Jan 6 has list of circumstantial evidence that leads to intent to mislead those who would search for the truth of intent.
#643
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,315
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
obstruction of an official proceeding

Your going nutty{ lame  brain } again 3Ru. Ever since covid youve gone more and more lame brain on us by  supporting ideas like ...oh it was just protesters doing a self-guided tour of white house...

..." Trump chief of staff said the president thought Pence ‘deserves’ chants of ‘hang Mike Pence’ on Jan. 6, ex-aide testifies "...

Video of protesters chanting ......hang mike pence....

...." President Trump defended January 6 Capitol rioters who were changing "hang Mike Pence" by saying "Mike deserves it." "....
Topic's author
#644
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
protests have occupied government buildings before
And none of those would reasonably be considered "just a protest" now would they?

i have no idea what examples you might consider relevant 

feel free to present some examples at your leisure
It wasn't my argument. I was asking for your logic because it made no sense.

A riot, uprising, inserection, whatever term you want to use - these are all terms that are defined by group activity, so the bar to charge any individual with something like this is extremely, cripplingly high. And the activity it would take to prove any individual is guilty here is not even what's being alleged with respect to the individual rioters.

I'm of course ignoring the sedition charges filled against various oath keepers members because I think that's a distraction from the point of this thread. So setting them aside, this whole "no one has been charged for inserection" is a BS cop out because it has nothing to do with what people like myself are saying.

Again, I laid out 6 points explaining the central allegation in regards to January 6th and explained in detail how these 6 points leads to the unmistakable conclusion that the central claim is correct. Are you going to address that, or just keep pretending it was never said?
Topic's author
#645
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
i'm not sure why this particular building is any more important
Temple of the gods.
It wasn't the building that mattered, it's what was going on inside the building that made this a historical event.
#646
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,760
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
It wasn't my argument. I was asking for your logic because it made no sense.
honestly, i just did a search for literally "january 6th convictions" and that was the first result

the top five or six links were to the same story

so, it seemed "relevant"

what makes you think it was "cherry picked" ?

how could you even claim it was "cherry picked" unless you yourself found what you consider "BETTER" examples of "january 6th convictions" ?

also,

#647
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,760
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
So setting them aside, this whole "no one has been charged for inserection"
that's not my claim

"no one has been CONVICTED of insurrection"

is much more to-the-point

anyone can be "suspected of" and anyone can be "charged with" anything imaginable

unfortunately, a charge does not itself, prove a crime has been committed by the individual accused
#648
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,760
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
obstruction of an official proceeding
Your going nutty{ lame  brain } again 3Ru. Ever since covid youve gone more and more lame brain on us by  supporting ideas like ...oh it was just protesters doing a self-guided tour of white house...
obstruction of an official proceeding

is the crime that resulted in an actual conviction
Topic's author
#649
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
what makes you think it was "cherry picked" ?

how could you even claim it was "cherry picked" unless you yourself found what you consider "BETTER" examples of "january 6th convictions" ?
Cherry picked does not necessarily mean you intentionally went through a list and discarded otherwise valid examples, it means you are relying on anecdotal examples when you had access to more information.

To date there have been at least 884 charges filed, the vast majority of those are still being litigated so to suggest that a lack of convictions is indicative of a lack of criminality is just silly.

No one is claiming that charges = guilt. You are the one bringing up court rulings as if that is relavant here. It's not. Again, we're talking about the court of public opinion. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that, but every time I do it just further validates that there is no reasonable argument to be made here that the case I laid out is incorrect. In case you forgot...

Again, I laid out 6 points explaining the central allegation in regards to January 6th and explained in detail how these 6 points leads to the unmistakable conclusion that the central claim is correct. Are you going to address that, or just keep pretending it was never said?
When one has no valid argument, deflection is the only option.
#650
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,238
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
When one has no valid argument, deflection is the only option.
So just keep pretending it was never said. Noted.
#651
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,315
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
obstruction of an official proceeding

At USA federal  capital building where people feared for their lives and people where chanting hang Mike Pence and others saying Trumpet invited us here.

is the crime that resulted in an actual conviction

People with guns and others who ransacked capital  building  caused harm via their vilolent actions to stop if not overturn a valid election, that, was supported by Trumpet and various federal and state authoriites.

Playing dumb to all of this above just makes you look like you support Trumpet and those nutcases following his lead just makes you look lame eRu, and I know your not that lame.  Or maybe i'm incorrect. Every since covid you have gone a little haywire.


68 days later

Topic's author
#652
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
27 pages in and I have yet to hear a single Trump supporter give their opinion about what they think the evidence presented in these hearings show. Instead it's been deflection to the democrats, ratings, inflation, gas, etc.

I wonder why?
#653
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,238
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Because he jury won't convene until November.
Topic's author
#654
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
We're talking about the court of public opinion. That's where the people use their common sense to decide for themselves what they find reasonable to believe. You have no issue with this anytime we're talking about Joe Biden, why is it such a problem for you to apply actual thought to Trump?
#655
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,238
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
We're talking about the court of public opinion.

Which convenes in November...