Do you believe Donald Trump is criminally culpable for events on or around January 6th 2021?

[Nakosis]

And what if you were also found to have plotted out the whole thing with other people (including lawyers), and in fact, you tried to be there when he did kill the President but were prevented by the Secret Service?

If there is evidence of intent to act that of course is a different story.

 

[Nakosis]

They could have invented the term stochastic terrorism just for t****.


"

1. A leader or organization uses rhetoric in the mass media against a group of people.
2. This rhetoric, while hostile or hateful, doesn’t explicitly tell someone to carry out an act of violence against that group, but a person, feeling threatened, is motivated to do so as a result.
3. That individual act of political violence can’t be predicted as such, but that violence will happen is much more probable thanks to the rhetoric.
4. This rhetoric is thus called stochastic terrorism because of the way it incites random violence."

- What Is "Stochastic Terrorism," And Why Is It Trending?

I see such rhetoric commonly used in politics from both the left and the right. While it is useful for folks to be aware of it I don't accept the idea that it rises to the level of criminal prosecution. I personally feel people have the right to hate whoever they choose to hate, not even sure if this is a choice, but a least choose to express their feelings, whatever they happen to be. Acting on those feelings is a different matter. IOW, I can demonize whoever I want in the expression of my views. You can't know however if there was any intent on my part to act on what I express nor that I intended anyone else to act on what I expressed. You can't know the state of my mind unless it is someone explicitly communicated. While there may be social consequences to my expression of hatred, there shouldn't be criminal consequences IMO.

As stated you cannot predict the actions of other individual base on my rhetoric which also mean I cannot predict the actions of others base on my rhetoric. Expressing my opinion does not make me responsible for the actions of others even if they claim to have acted because of the opinions I expressed. People cannot blame anyone else for the actions they themselves choose to take, IMO.

 

[Nakosis]

If that were true manipulators, conmen, and charismatic religious leaders would get nowhere. But it is true and the case against Manson was pretty solid.

I understand some are more easily manipulated than others, still IMO, the individual has to be held solely responsible for the actions they choose to take. We cannot know the actual state of their mind nor the state of the mind of the individual whom they claim to have been influenced by. Not unless there is evidence of this state of mind having been recorded/written down.

 

[averageJOE]

I'm going to spoil the end of the movie...nothing happens to Trump.

 

[Secret Chief]

I see such rhetoric commonly used in politics from both the left and the right. While it is useful for folks to be aware of it I don't accept the idea that it rises to the level of criminal prosecution. I personally feel people have the right to hate whoever they choose to hate, not even sure if this is a choice, but a least choose to express their feelings, whatever they happen to be. Acting on those feelings is a different matter. IOW, I can demonize whoever I want in the expression of my views. You can't know however if there was any intent on my part to act on what I express nor that I intended anyone else to act on what I expressed. You can't know the state of my mind unless it is someone explicitly communicated. While there may be social consequences to my expression of hatred, there shouldn't be criminal consequences IMO.

As stated you cannot predict the actions of other individual base on my rhetoric which also mean I cannot predict the actions of others base on my rhetoric. Expressing my opinion does not make me responsible for the actions of others even if they claim to have acted because of the opinions I expressed. People cannot blame anyone else for the actions they themselves choose to take, IMO.

I realise it's tricky if not impossible to tie the two. But media owners wouldn't own outlets (print, online, tv) if they didn't think that their propaganda was effective longterm.

 

[Nakosis]

Was Charlie you old roommate that owed you money, you seem sympathetic?

The evidence was good enough to send him away for life. I'm not sure what you think was thin. He wanted a race war, and he told his "family members" to murder people. Bugliosi was the prosecutor and wrote a book about the murders. Pretty grizzly.

I've no feelings one way or another for Manson. I don't know the guy. Just based on information from various source regarding the case.

Well not only was there no evidence of election fraud, there was massive agreement that it was a secure election. Yet thousands of Trump followers believed his lie, and they had a rally at the Capitol on Jan 6. Many hundreds broke the law, and some regret their acts, insisting they trusted Trump and were following his orders.

But no evidence of Trump telling them to break the law as far as I know.

Yes individuals have their own agency to think and act. But not all people are mentally strong and capable of reasoning. They have bad mental habits and are easily convinced to do things that feel good emotionally. This is a type of immaturity and naivte. They know know they are not quite savvy thinkers and have been weakened to the fact Trump duped them. And they let Trump dupe them, which is part of the co-dependent relationship of charismatic leaders and weak minded people.

While you can assume the state of mind of the people who broke the law you cannot know it. Which is why, IMO, you need evidence of intent to act or cause others to break the law.

 

[Nakosis]

I realise it's tricky if not impossible to tie the two. But media owners wouldn't own outlets (print, online, tv) if they didn't think that their propaganda was effective longterm.

I understand, but it is a weakness in humanity I hate. One I refuse to accept as an excuse one gives for their actions. IMO, the freedom to express one's opinion is paramount regardless of how ridicules or hateful it is. I want you to be as free to express your opinions as me or anyone else knowing that there are real consequences to this position.

 

[wellwisher]

I am asking about any crime, inciting a riot, inciting an insurrection, interfering with Congress, perpetuating a fraud, dereliction of duty, witness intimidation, etc. In answering this question consider not only the events of that day but also the scheming of the days and weeks before.
Somethings to consider.

One of the problem is, if Trump was indicted, he will now have to have a fair and impartial trial. It can no longer be just a kangaroo court trial, that is one-side, partial and biased.

For example, in a fair trial, Trump's lawyers can ask; how come Nancy Pelosi has not testified about her not taking the needed security precautions recommended before jan 6, that could have made this a nonevent? She, as the Speaker of the House is in charge of Capital security. She was warned several days in advance and told to enhance security, but she did nothing. This will come out in a fair trial and need to be answered. Was Nancy getting senile and could not see the risk? Did Nancy think the Republicans would be peaceful on Jan 6, since only the Democrats rioted all summer? Or was this part of a conspiracy to get Trump, since there is also video evidence of rabble rousers, who were from the FBI, who have yet to be questioned by the kangaroo court. The Kangaroo Court will be on trial.

The Democrat appointed AG is not acting because, he does not see things adding up for an indictment that can stick in a fair trial. This mock trial is all theater, before the midterms and before 2024. If the Republicans win the midterms, and then Trump was to win in 2024, they will investigate Hunter Biden, and the coup of 2016.

Does anyone remember the Russian Collusion Coup, where the Democrats, Rhino Republicans, the then heads of the FBI, and CIA, Hi-tech, and the mass media all conspired, as a team, overthrow a duly elected President? This was a nonstop gang attack, from all sides, for several years; 1000 against 1. It is not coincidence that the main liar; Schiff, is now the head of this kangaroo court. He has the most to lose if there is a trial for his role in the coup of 2016.

The Democrats are playing a game, where they try to make you focus only the events of a brief period of time; after Nancy Pelosi screwed up, to when the propaganda machine started to yell insurrection. They are leaving out the larger context of things. Nobody at the top of the Coup of 2016, was ever punished, and many of the thugs who led that coup, are on this committee. It is a political game to keep themselves out of jail.

If Trump was indicted, all Trump has to do as a defense in a fair trial, is to bring up the coup of 2016, and how those crooks were never punished, and could not be trusted to run a fair election in 2020, since they were motivated to stay out of jail. Trump was ready to finally drain the swamp in his second term.

As commander in chief, he had to do something to avoid the lingering coup from succeeding. This will bring the focus back to the earlier days of 2016, to see if his action were justified, due to so many unpunished criminals still in power, trying to cover up their crimes, using that power. There are hundred of thousand of hours of mass and social media documentation, where these same kangaroo court characters, lied for the coup of 2016. This will create a Trump mistrial, leading to their own indictments.

What I would do is require Schiff present the smoking gun evidence he said he had during the entire coup of 2016. If he does not present it, then use the FBI to raid his home at night and throw him in jail for contempt of Court. There was never any evidence since that was part of the scam. So he will not be able to present anything, even he wanted to, so he can stay in jail, until he sings and breaks ranks.

I would also ask Mueller and his group of 20 shady Democrat lawyers, why their final report did not find that Hillary Clinton bought the fake dossier that was the pretense for the Coup of 2016? How could they all miss that? These lawyers may need to face trial and be forced to pay back their ill gotten gains. Using tax payer money to run a partisan investigation, may also be a crime and need to be paid back by the DNC. The clock is ticking for the criminals of the 2016 Coup. Anarchy all not save them this time.

 

[F1fan]

I've no feelings one way or another for Manson. I don't know the guy. Just based on information from various source regarding the case.

There have been video interviews with Manson in the years before he died in prison, and he was a nutcase. I'm sure they are on the Web somewhere. As I recall he never admitted any remorse for what he did.

But no evidence of Trump telling them to break the law as far as I know.

As Michael Cohen often testified that Trump doesn't tell people to go commit crimes directly, he uses a passive suggestion where those who are absorbed in his cult of personality will do to please him. Trump would often say "I want this to happen..." and his lacky would make it happen.

There should never have been a protest on Jan 6. The ONLY reason there was one was due to Trump lying about election fraud. Trump even gave his speech on Jan 6 and told his crowd, many of whom had guns, to march down to the Capitol. Why?

Evidence is being revealed that Trump knew, or was told, that there was a dangerous situation happening at the Capitol, and he was pleased. He did nothing for 187 minutes to stop his rioters from stopping their violence.

It sounds as if you are not following the reports of testimonies by witnesses. If you are going to debate this issue you would be wise to read up on what witnesses are saying.

While you can assume the state of mind of the people who broke the law you cannot know it. Which is why, IMO, you need evidence of intent to act or cause others to break the law.

And federal prosecutors are more and more in agreement that there is adequate evidence to indict Trump, and that is just what has been revealed to the public. There is much more evidence that points to Trump knowing what he was doing. He denies it. He claims he truly believes he lost due to fraud. But witnesses are testifying that they told Trump there was no fraud. That includes the FBI, Barr of the DoJ, Trump's legal advisors, Homeland Security, etc. Trump ignored these people and listened to crackpots like Guiliani (being sued), Powell (being sued), Eastman (being criminally investigated), Clark (being criminally investigated), among others. If Trump is truly oblivious to the facts, and ignores his inner circle, but believes these crackpots, then the guy is not fit to be president.

 

[F1fan]

One of the problem is, if Trump was indicted, he will now have to have a fair and impartial trial. It can no longer be just a kangaroo court trial, that is one-side, partial and biased.

For example, in a fair trial, Trump's lawyers can ask; how come Nancy Pelosi has not testified about her not taking the needed security precautions recommended before jan 6, that could have made this a nonevent?

Except the Jan 6 protest should never have happened, let alone the riot and attack. Trump lied and lied and lied about election fraud (that isn't true) and that responsibility falls on Trump. He lied. He continues to lie.

So Pelosi is irrelevant here to what Trump did. If there is a criminal act by Pelosi, then that can be a seater investigation. This far it sounds like right wing disinformation.

The Democrat appointed AG is not acting because, he does not see things adding up for an indictment that can stick in a fair trial.

This is a guess. Garland has said no such thing. He is not very aggressive as an AG, so republicans should be very happy with him.

But Georgia is another deal, and republicans should be very worried.

This mock trial is all theater, before the midterms and before 2024.

Actually it's a hearing, not a trial. It is being conducted with sanity and order, which is fantastic. It is presenting a lot of witness testimony, mostly republicans, and many federal attorneys think there is adequate evidence for indictment.

If the Republicans win the midterms, and then Trump was to win in 2024, they will investigate Hunter Biden, and the coup of 2016.

More mockery, just like going after Hilary TWICE for Benghazi. Go for it. But it's irrelevant to the Trump case.

Does anyone remember the Russian Collusion Coup, where the Democrats, Rhino Republicans, the then heads of the FBI, and CIA, Hi-tech, and the mass media all conspired, as a team, overthrow a duly elected President? This was a nonstop gang attack, from all sides, for several years; 1000 against 1. It is not coincidence that the main liar; Schiff, is now the head of this kangaroo court. He has the most to lose if there is a trial for his role in the coup of 2016.

Irrelevant to Trump's crimes. But I understand this is how you cope with it all, distract, deflect.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For example, in a fair trial, Trump's lawyers can ask; how come Nancy Pelosi has not testified about her not taking the needed security precautions recommended before jan 6, that could have made this a nonevent?

In other words ...

So explain this to us, young lady. You claim you were raped. But why, then, did you walk hope from the store alone when taking a cab would have made this a nonevent?​

This kind of vile "defense" by impugning the victim should disgust. To associate it with "a fair trial" is simply obscene.

 

[Nakosis]

There have been video interviews with Manson in the years before he died in prison, and he was a nutcase. I'm sure they are on the Web somewhere. As I recall he never admitted any remorse for what he did.

I'm not disagreeing about Manson being a nut job.

As Michael Cohen often testified that Trump doesn't tell people to go commit crimes directly, he uses a passive suggestion where those who are absorbed in his cult of personality will do to please him. Trump would often say "I want this to happen..." and his lacky would make it happen.

There should never have been a protest on Jan 6. The ONLY reason there was one was due to Trump lying about election fraud. Trump even gave his speech on Jan 6 and told his crowd, many of whom had guns, to march down to the Capitol. Why?

Evidence is being revealed that Trump knew, or was told, that there was a dangerous situation happening at the Capitol, and he was pleased. He did nothing for 187 minutes to stop his rioters from stopping their violence.

It sounds as if you are not following the reports of testimonies by witnesses. If you are going to debate this issue you would be wise to read up on what witnesses are saying.

Then a conviction shouldn't be a problem. An actual trial would be interesting.

And federal prosecutors are more and more in agreement that there is adequate evidence to indict Trump, and that is just what has been revealed to the public. There is much more evidence that points to Trump knowing what he was doing. He denies it. He claims he truly believes he lost due to fraud. But witnesses are testifying that they told Trump there was no fraud. That includes the FBI, Barr of the DoJ, Trump's legal advisors, Homeland Security, etc. Trump ignored these people and listened to crackpots like Guiliani (being sued), Powell (being sued), Eastman (being criminally investigated), Clark (being criminally investigated), among others. If Trump is truly oblivious to the facts, and ignores his inner circle, but believes these crackpots, then the guy is not fit to be president.

I'm not arguing about Trump's fitness to be president. Just making a judgement about the case itself. I'm more interested in a principle of expression than Trump's well being.

 

[metis]

For example, in a fair trial, Trump's lawyers can ask; how come Nancy Pelosi has not testified about her not taking the needed security precautions recommended before jan 6, that could have made this a nonevent? She, as the Speaker of the House is in charge of Capital security. She was warned several days in advance and told to enhance security, but she did nothing.

The number of Capital Police on duty was upped but it turned out not to be enough. It was up to Trump to call out the National Guard and/or the FBI but he refused to do so, so Pence had to do it.

Thus, to blame Pelosi on this is 100% nonsensical.

The Kangaroo Court will be on trial.

You are either not paying attention to what eyewitnesses have testified or you're simply "out to lunch".

I would also ask Mueller and his group of 20 shady Democrat lawyers, why their final report did not find that Hillary Clinton bought the fake dossier that was the pretense for the Coup of 2016? How could they all miss that?

Another made up piece of tripe, and you should remember that some of the Pubs also voted for Trump's impeachment.

So, I guess just go ahead with watching the Fox Propaganda Channel and continue to support a former president that does not in any way reflect Judeo-Christian values and actions. If you go to mass, maybe pray for yourself and what you are defending so as to eventually see what the Truth is. You can believe in Trump or believe in Jesus, but you cannot believe in both without slipping into serious cognitive dissonance.

 

[Mock Turtle]

One of the problem is, if Trump was indicted, he will now have to have a fair and impartial trial. It can no longer be just a kangaroo court trial, that is one-side, partial and biased.

Or get to the level where one set of judges (SCOTUS) gets involved - given they seem partial and biased.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm going to spoil the end of the movie...nothing happens to Trump.

Of course.

Like all the other nutty endeavors of the left, it's nothingburger city.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I understand some are more easily manipulated than others, still IMO, the individual has to be held solely responsible for the actions they choose to take. We cannot know the actual state of their mind nor the state of the mind of the individual whom they claim to have been influenced by. Not unless there is evidence of this state of mind having been recorded/written down.

That just does not match with what we know about human psychology and the brain, and indeed Manson isn't the only time we've found someone holding profound control over others.

 

[Nakosis]

That just does not match with what we know about human psychology and the brain, and indeed Manson isn't the only time we've found someone holding profound control over others.

So, do you admit to being so easily manipulated? Powerless against the next Manson or political leader to suggest you act in a destructive way?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm going to spoil the end of the movie...nothing happens to Trump.

Of course not. Americans, in their fervour to get rid of kings, couldn't quite purge themselves of their reverence for royalty. As a consequence, they can't bring themselves to see a President (sitting or former) as just another American, subject like everyone else to the law.

It's actually kind of amusing, when you think about it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, do you admit to being so easily manipulated? Powerless against the next Manson or political leader to suggest you act in a destructive way?

No. I am simply acknowledging facts. Free will doesn't exist.