So where’s the quote where Trump said storm the Capitol and kill Pence. I’ll wait. Because according to the Court, that’s what he needs to do.
This statement pretty much sums it all up.
A post or so ago I used the money laundering example. The point was to illustrate that the conclusion takes multiple steps to get to, the fact that you cannot get there in one fell swoop does not negate the validity of that conclusion. This is basic common sense.
Trump supporters will never accept anything negative about him unless it’s spelled out in the clearest of terms possible all in one sound bite. Unless he stands up and says “I want you to fraudulently steal the election for me” you guys will always pretend his mindset was unclear. It’s beyond pathetic.
And no, this is not a requirement of the court. The requirement is that the jurors use their common sense in the same way that they would in any other situation. If I smiled at your wife, then bought her a drink, then invited her to my place… you wouldn’t need for me to spell out my intentions to know damn well what they were. But when it comes to Trump suddenly it’s impossible to know. That’s ridiculous.
It really says a lot though that you don’t care about the legal nuances.
When we are arguing in a thread about whether Trump should be prosecuted, I will care about and discuss the legal nuances. This is not a thread about Trump’s legal exposure. It’s a thread about what the committee has reveals to the American people and how you as a Trump supporter deals with those facts.
But it seems I already have the answer. Being that you have not once in this thread attempted to engage in the evidence presented against him and how that impacts your attitude towards him as a political leader and instead gone down the rabbit hole of attacking the committee, attacking democrats, and finding legal grounds to dismiss all of it as if this were a criminal trial, it’s clear that the way you deal with these facts is to ignore them.
The fact here is they were illegal and the executives did them anyways in violation of the law. Period. Full stop.
Which is irrelevant to this conversation. The executives are not the ones who decided Joe Biden would get WI’s electoral votes, that decision was made by the people of WI. That’s what this conversation is actually about.
Again, any reasonable interpretation of the phrase “the election was stolen” points to the idea that the candidate the people chose did not come away as the victor. That’s not what happened here, which is why you need to go down this hole of “but the drop boxes”.
Trump lost WI because more legal WI voters decided that they wanted Biden instead. Whether they cast their ballots through the mail, in a drop box, or in person is irrelevant to that fact. I’m sorry you cannot handle that and so you need to find a technicality to disqualify legal WI voters from consideration, but the whole point of elections is for the results to match the will of the people. Until you can argue that that this not happen here the rest of your points are nonsense red herrings.
Ray Epps was a fed who incited the crowd and cause people to break into the Capitol.
Prove:
1. That Ray Epps was working for out with the federal government on January 6th
2. That anyone attacked the US Capitol who would not have if Ray Epps was not present.
You resort to false equivalency fallacies to somehow prove I’m being partisan, when it’s your sides advocacy of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All that…
My sides advocacy? What the hell is that supposed to mean?
In your attempt to swat away the allegation you end up proving it by projecting.
I don’t give a rats ass about sides, I’m arguing what I believe because I find it to be true. My side are those who care about reality, which is why I’m challenging folks who are defending Trump here to make the counter argument, yet all you have is red herrings. That only affirms the point I started off with; his actions are indefensible. If they were defendable, people like you would be able to. But here we are.
