The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

[Subduction Zone]

Oh ok. A one sided partisan committee run by the opposition party where evidence that defends Trump is not allowed. The republicans on the committee hated Trump. That was not due process.

There was no evidence that defends Trump. For example Trump did not sign an order to deploy 20,000 national guard troops. He lied to you and you bought it.

Trump did not sign an order to deploy 20,000 troops on Jan. 6

New footage released Thursday of House lawmakers on Jan. 6 has sparked a resurgence of false claims and conspiracy theories about the insurrection.

apnews.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just because someone thought Trump ordered them to commit violence does not mean that he told them to do anything. He told them to go march peaceably. One fact not entered into the Jan 6th record. Why?

So what if he claims election fraud? Can no one question an election results?

No CO election official made this decision. Do you even know what happened in Colorado?

Again how is claiming election fraud an insurrection? He recommended the national guard 2 days prior to Jan 6th. Congress refused. So not stopping the crimes is criminal? You have a very low bar for conviction for conservatives huh.

Apparent by who? Not all dem states think he should be barred from the ballot. There is more evidence for Bidens corruption than anything Trump did.

This is a very eloquent use of the ostrich defense. But it does not change reality.

 

[F1fan]

Just because someone thought Trump ordered them to commit violence does not mean that he told them to do anything.

Trump lied about election fraud. As president. He knew his words had influence.

He told them to go march peaceably. One fact not entered into the Jan 6th record. Why?

Oh they marched peacefully, but attacked once the march was over. You have seen the video. Over 130 police officers injured. Al that happened because Trump lies. Now he is being held accountable.

So what if he claims election fraud?

His words had influence and he knew it. So he is responsible for the net results of his followers. Now he is being held accountable.

Can no one question an election results?

Question? Yes. And there were answers. Even the company Trump hired found no fraud. The company informed Trump, and the owner wrote a book about it. So Trump's continued lying IS fraud. And he is being held accountable.

No CO election official made this decision. Do you even know what happened in Colorado?

It has been well reported. States run their own elections via their own laws.

Again how is claiming election fraud an insurrection?

His lies led to the actions of others, and Trump was aware of his influence as president.

He recommended the national guard 2 days prior to Jan 6th. Congress refused. So not stopping the crimes is criminal? You have a very low bar for conviction for conservatives huh.

This whole issue is rampant with disinformation. As it is Trump refused the do anything as the insurrection was happening. Witnesses saw him watching TV and making comments. He refused all appeals for him to do something to stop the insurrection. This includes his daughter.

Apparent by who? Not all dem states think he should be barred from the ballot.

Even red states have looked into whether their laws are such that Trump is disqualified. It is a matter of state laws, and now the Supreme Court has to settle the lack of consistency between state laws and the US constitution.

There is more evidence for Bidens corruption than anything Trump did.

This is laughably untrue. If you are going by what Comer has revealed then Biden is squeeky clean, because Comer's accustaions are baseless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This whole issue is rampant with disinformation. As it is Trump refused the do anything as the insurrection was happening. Witnesses saw him watching TV and making comments. He refused all appeals for him to do something to stop the insurrection. This includes his daughter.

I posted an article that refuted that particular lie of Trump's. It is a bad sign when one believes all of the lies of either party.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What is the evidence he committed an insurrection?

If it is so obvious then why hasn't any prosecutor made a name for themselves and charged and convicted him of it? Why did Michigan, California, New Hampshire and Minnesota determine to leave him on the ballot? Why did the Colorado district court decide to leave him on the ballot? It is not obvious.

He recommended the national guard to be at the capitol, he said to march peaceably to the capitol. These are not actions of an insurrectionists. Why were none of these facts entered into the Jan 6th committee findings? You are being used.

Evidence? His speech on camera urging his supporters on -- and 4 1/2 hours watching an insurrection (as many convictions have now determined it to be in court) on television while even his own daughter repeatedly begged him to go on air and put a stop to it, and refusing. Clearly you'll settle for nothing less than a video of him hanging Mike Pence himself (by the way, when his own loyal Pence was scuttled off to safety, when Trump was told about it in that dining room watching TV his only comment was, "so what?").

There are plenty of better arses to kiss. Why choose that orange lard-arse?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Just because someone thought Trump ordered them to commit violence does not mean that he told them to do anything. He told them to go march peaceably.

Did you watch Trump's speech on January 6? Just a snippet for you:

Over 10,300 ballots in Georgia were cast by individuals whose names and dates of birth match Georgia residents who died in 2020 and prior to the election.​

​

More than 2,500 ballots were cast by individuals whose names and dates of birth match incarcerated felons in Georgia prison. People who are not allowed to vote.​

​

More than 4,500 illegal ballots were cast by individuals who do not appear on the state's own voter rolls.​

​

Over 18,000 illegal ballots were cast by individuals who registered to vote using an address listed as vacant, according to the Postal Service.​

​

At least 88,000 ballots in Georgia were cast by people whose registrations were illegally backdated.​

​

Sixty-six thousand votes, each one of these is far more than we need. Sixty-six thousand votes in Georgia were cast by individuals under the legal voting age.​

​

And at least 15,000 ballots were cast by individuals who moved out of the state prior to November 3 election. They say they moved right back. They moved right back. Oh, they moved out, they moved right back. OK. They missed Georgia that much. I do. I love Georgia, but it's a corrupt system.​

​

Despite all of this, the margin in Georgia is only 11,779 votes.​

​

Each and every one of these issues is enough to give us a victory in Georgia, a big beautiful victory. Make no mistake, this election was stolen from you, from me and from the country.​

​

And not a single swing state has conducted a comprehensive audit to remove the illegal ballots. This should absolutely occur in every single contested state before the election is certified.​

​

In the state of Arizona, over 36,000 ballots were illegally cast by non-citizens. Two thousand ballots were returned with no address. More than 22,000 ballots were returned before they were ever supposedly mailed out. They returned, but we haven't mailed them yet.​

​

Eleven thousand six hundred more ballots and votes were counted, more than there were actual voters. You see that? So you have more votes again than you have voters.​

​

One hundred and fifty thousand people registered in Maricopa County after the registration deadline. One hundred and three thousand ballots in the county were sent for electronic adjudication with no Republican observers.​

​

In Clark County, Nevada, the accuracy settings on signature verification machines were purposely lowered before they were used to count over 130,000 ballots.​

​

Every single one of those statements is (and has been proved to be) a complete LIE. But you need that sort of thing if you want to keep people believing they've been cheated -- and before you tell them:

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.​

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just because someone thought Trump ordered them to commit violence does not mean that he told them to do anything. He told them to go march peaceably. One fact not entered into the Jan 6th record. Why?

I'm getting tired of using this analogy, but I'm going to attempt to use it once more to illustrate this:

Let's imagine I, very publicly, accused you of being a paedophile. Let's even say that, because of either some false information or my own personal ignorance, I happen to genuinely believe it. Now, let's say I have thousands of people for whom I am in a position of influence over (like, say, I'm an established and elected representative of these people) and I tell all of those people that you're a paedophile. I keep doing this over and over, despite repeated court cases raised by you against all of my claims that show that there is no evidence you have ever - or would ever - abuse children in any way. Regardless of this, and regardless of any failure of any investigation to find any evidence that you would ever abuse children, I keep insisting to all of the people I have influence over that you are a paedophile.

Then, one day, I arrange a rally at which I repeat all of my claims about you. I tell them it's a travesty that you haven't been brought to justice, and we need to "fight like hell" to protect children from you, and that we should all march on your home. But I tell people to march "peacefully". Nevertheless, the thousands of people at the rally descend on your home, violence breaks out, they break into your home and hurt you and your family.

Now, am I - in any way - responsible for that crowd hurting you and your family? Because the answer is obviously yes. Just because I never told them to attack you, and even if I explicitly told them not to, the fact of the matter is that that group of people were only there because of my instruction, they were only angered by my constant allegations and my reckless disregard for facts, my ignoring of legal processes and my careless attitude towards your safety.

By any reasonable standard, both moral and legal, I am responsible for that happening. This should not be difficult to understand. I am certain there are times when you have blamed politicians for consequences of their words or actions that are not necessarily directly attributable to something they simply TOLD people to do. People on both sides of the political divide do this. How many people on this forum blame BLM for riots, despite the fact that BLM explicitly call for non-violence? It's not uncommon.

I mean, think about it. If you're consistent, you can never hold anyone accountable for anything other than the things they explicitly said was the intended consequence of their action. Do you seriously want to advocate for the position that we cannot hold POLITICIANS (Y'know, that one group of people most widely known for speaking in ways designed to MASK OR OBFUSCATE THEIR INTENTIONS AND REDUCE THEIR CULPABILITY) accountable for their actions unless they explicitly stated that the outcomes of their actions were intentional? Think about that position for five seconds.

So what if he claims election fraud? Can no one question an election results?

There's a big difference between questioning election results and outright and repeatedly claiming to voters that the election WAS FRAUDULENT, making specific claims about HOW THE ELECTION WAS FALSE and repeatedly stating the election WAS STOLEN despite all investigations finding no evidence and multiple court cases completely rejecting my claims, and then using these claims to rally a huge number of people I have influence over into marching directly to the place where the vote was being ratified ON THE DAY IT WAS BEING RATIFIED under the belief that the people doing so were traitors to the country.

To use my analogy above, "So what if I claimed you're a paedophile? Can no one question whether someone is a paedophile or not?"

Seriously, your argument appears to be "So what if actions have consequences? Nobody should be considered responsible for the direct and obvious consequences of their actions!", which is a moral standard I am willing to believe you would never, ever dream of applying to people you aren't politically aligned with.

 

[stvdv]

The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

The Supreme Court will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the 2024 presidential ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

apnews.com

Of course, this was expected, but now they've finally announced that they will be hearing the case. Should be interesting.

Indeed interesting

My guess is "Trump will be the next President"

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

There was no evidence that defends Trump. For example Trump did not sign an order to deploy 20,000 national guard troops. He lied to you and you bought it.

Trump did not sign an order to deploy 20,000 troops on Jan. 6

New footage released Thursday of House lawmakers on Jan. 6 has sparked a resurgence of false claims and conspiracy theories about the insurrection.

apnews.com

I never said he signed anything. He recommended them. Defense secretary MIller testified that Trump asked him on Jan 3rd if troops were going to be deployed and told him to protect the demonstrators.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Trump lied about election fraud. As president. He knew his words had influence.

Oh they marched peacefully, but attacked once the march was over. You have seen the video. Over 130 police officers injured. Al that happened because Trump lies. Now he is being held accountable.

His words had influence and he knew it. So he is responsible for the net results of his followers. Now he is being held accountable.

Yeah, so he told them to march peaceably, they did not and now you blame Trump for the violence. How have you determined that Trump did not believe what he said about election fraud?

It has been well reported. States run their own elections via their own laws.

Read the constitution, that is not the case for presidential elections.

His lies led to the actions of others, and Trump was aware of his influence as president.

This whole issue is rampant with disinformation. As it is Trump refused the do anything as the insurrection was happening. Witnesses saw him watching TV and making comments. He refused all appeals for him to do something to stop the insurrection. This includes his daughter.

So what? How is this a crime? What should he have done that wasn't being done?

Even red states have looked into whether their laws are such that Trump is disqualified. It is a matter of state laws, and now the Supreme Court has to settle the lack of consistency between state laws and the US constitution.

States cannot violate someone's rights when they make election laws.

This is laughably untrue. If you are going by what Comer has revealed then Biden is squeeky clean, because Comer's accustaions are baseless.

Where did I say Trump is squeaky clean? I said he did not commit insurrection and has not been charged with that.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Evidence? His speech on camera urging his supporters on -- and 4 1/2 hours watching an insurrection (as many convictions have now determined it to be in court) on television while even his own daughter repeatedly begged him to go on air and put a stop to it, and refusing. Clearly you'll settle for nothing less than a video of him hanging Mike Pence himself (by the way, when his own loyal Pence was scuttled off to safety, when Trump was told about it in that dining room watching TV his only comment was, "so what?").

There are plenty of better arses to kiss. Why choose that orange lard-arse?

Ok, then why has he not been charged with an insurrection? If it is so clear he should be in jail by now.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Did you watch Trump's speech on January 6? Just a snippet for you:

Over 10,300 ballots in Georgia were cast by individuals whose names and dates of birth match Georgia residents who died in 2020 and prior to the election.​

​

More than 2,500 ballots were cast by individuals whose names and dates of birth match incarcerated felons in Georgia prison. People who are not allowed to vote.​

​

More than 4,500 illegal ballots were cast by individuals who do not appear on the state's own voter rolls.​

​

Over 18,000 illegal ballots were cast by individuals who registered to vote using an address listed as vacant, according to the Postal Service.​

​

At least 88,000 ballots in Georgia were cast by people whose registrations were illegally backdated.​

​

Sixty-six thousand votes, each one of these is far more than we need. Sixty-six thousand votes in Georgia were cast by individuals under the legal voting age.​

​

And at least 15,000 ballots were cast by individuals who moved out of the state prior to November 3 election. They say they moved right back. They moved right back. Oh, they moved out, they moved right back. OK. They missed Georgia that much. I do. I love Georgia, but it's a corrupt system.​

​

Despite all of this, the margin in Georgia is only 11,779 votes.​

​

Each and every one of these issues is enough to give us a victory in Georgia, a big beautiful victory. Make no mistake, this election was stolen from you, from me and from the country.​

​

And not a single swing state has conducted a comprehensive audit to remove the illegal ballots. This should absolutely occur in every single contested state before the election is certified.​

​

In the state of Arizona, over 36,000 ballots were illegally cast by non-citizens. Two thousand ballots were returned with no address. More than 22,000 ballots were returned before they were ever supposedly mailed out. They returned, but we haven't mailed them yet.​

​

Eleven thousand six hundred more ballots and votes were counted, more than there were actual voters. You see that? So you have more votes again than you have voters.​

​

One hundred and fifty thousand people registered in Maricopa County after the registration deadline. One hundred and three thousand ballots in the county were sent for electronic adjudication with no Republican observers.​

​

In Clark County, Nevada, the accuracy settings on signature verification machines were purposely lowered before they were used to count over 130,000 ballots.​

​

Every single one of those statements is (and has been proved to be) a complete LIE. But you need that sort of thing if you want to keep people believing they've been cheated -- and before you tell them:

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.​

Again, so what? Nothing here indicates he wanted an insurrection. How do you know he did not believe these things? The fight like hell is used by many politicians. It does not demand violence. You are reading what you want into that. Biden said this same thing on Jan 5th. Saying if you elect Trump we lose our democracy and compared him to a Nazi. If someone tries to assasinate Trump will you hold Biden accountable?

What Trump said in his speech:

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,

Trump's tweets that day:

Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful! 1:38 PM.

I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you! 2:13 PM.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh ok. A one sided partisan committee run by the opposition party where evidence that defends Trump is not allowed. The republicans on the committee hated Trump. That was not due process.

In the Colorado saga, Trump was found by a court of law to have engaged in insurrection. This was upheld on appeal.

Trump and his attorneys were able to present evidence in both cases.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Trump's tweets that day:

Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful! 1:38 PM.

Except that tweet was actually sent at 2:38pm, over half an hour after the violence started. You're an hour out, for some reason. Initial reports suggested he didn't want to add "stay peaceful", and later reports discovered it was actually not Trump who sent the tweet, but his deputy chief of staff who sent it after repeatedly pleading for him to send a tweet to call for peace for over half an hour.
Sources: Timeline of the January 6 United States Capitol attack - Wikipedia

Special counsel probe uncovers new details about Trump's inaction on Jan. 6: Sources

Special counsel Jack Smith has uncovered previously undisclosed details about former President Trump's refusal to help stop the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, sources say.

abcnews.go.com

Funnily enough, before this, he called Senator Tuberville to insist he do more to hold up the objection to the electoral college vote.
Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/...ville-trump-misdialed-capitol-riot/index.html

It's also worth noting that this wasn't the first tweet he sent out after first hearing about the outbreak of violence at the Capitol. He actually sent this tweet first at 2:24pm:
“Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”
Sources:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1347376642956603392

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack

Doesn't exactly sound like he wanted to calm things down, does it?

I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you! 2:13 PM.

Again, you're an hour behind. This tweet was actually sent at 3:13pm, long after the violence started and long after his staff instructed him to do something to calm the crowd down.

Not that it matters - they were still only there, and only believed the vote was rigged, because of him. It's still all his fault. So, he either caused the insurrection by being a brazen idiot and genuinely believing the election was stolen despite all evidence to the contrary, or he's a malicious insurrectionist who did it deliberately. Either way, it's his fault.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, then why has he not been charged with an insurrection? If it is so clear he should be in jail by now.

Prosecutorial discretion is a thing. Prosecutors aren't required to include every crime a perpetrator committed in the charges against them.

Trump also isn't the only person being tried. His accomplices are going through their own processes, and in some cases, being offered deals in exchange for providing evidence or testimony against people higher up in the conspiracy (e.g. Trump). This takes time.

OTOH, the 14th Amendment doesn't provide any discretion to election officials. When the officials have a duty to reject an ineligible candidate, they can't wait - they have to respond to the application right away.

That being said, I agree that everything would be simpler if Trump were already in prison on an insurrection conviction.

Considering Trump's age and poor health, I think there's a good chance his lifestyle catches up with him before the end of his criminal trial (or, for the Trump fanboys, before he sees another election day) and all this becomes moot.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, you're an hour behind. This tweet was actually sent at 3:13pm, long after the violence started and long after his staff instructed him to do something to calm the crowd down.

Not that it matters - they were still only there, and only believed the vote was rigged, because of him. It's still all his fault.

They weren't just there because Trump riled them up; they were there to help further the coup that Trump was attempting with his fake electors.

At first, they were there to be the threat of violence to persuade Congress to vote along with the plan, but then when it became apparent that Pence wasn't cooperating, their goal changed to finding and killing Pence so that a coup supporter would replace him to oversee the EC vote count process.

 

[Stevicus]

Indeed interesting

My guess is "Trump will be the next President"

I suppose anything is possible at this point. I've noticed a good portion of the electorate seems rather fickle and unsettled these days, so it's hard to tell which way they'll go. I don't think Trump has enough hardcore support to win the election, but then, neither does Biden. It's the swing states and the swing voters - the perpetually undecided fence-sitters who will end up playing a key role - as they usually do.

Of course, it will all be moot if Trump is kicked off the ballot and declared ineligible to run for office. I don't know what the political fallout could be over that. Are the remaining Republicans willing and able to try to restrain or keep the MAGA Republicans under some measure of positive control? Or will they lose control of the herd entirely?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ok, then why has he not been charged with an insurrection? If it is so clear he should be in jail by now.

Because, as every always knew it would (and as Trump is making every effort to capitalize on), Trump's unique position makes the job of criminasl procedures against him extremely tricky. (He has been found guilty of insurrection in a civil action in Colorado, upheld on appeal.)

Source, New York Times, Charlie Savage, Aug. 4, 2023

How Jack Smith Structured the Trump Election Indictment to Reduce Risks​

​

The special counsel layered varied charges atop the same facts, while sidestepping a free-speech question by not charging incitement.​

​

In accusing former President Donald J. Trump of conspiring to subvert American democracy, the special counsel, Jack Smith, charged the same story three different ways. The charges are novel applications of criminal laws to unprecedented circumstances, heightening legal risks, but Mr. Smith’s tactic gives him multiple paths in obtaining and upholding a guilty verdict.​

​

“Especially in a case like this, you want to have multiple charges that are applicable or provable with the same evidence, so that if on appeal you lose one, you still have the conviction,” said Julie O’Sullivan, a Georgetown University law professor and former federal prosecutor.​

​

That structure in the indictment is only one of several strategic choices by Mr. Smith — including what facts and potential charges he chose to include or omit — that may foreshadow and shape how an eventual trial of Mr. Trump will play out.​

​

The four charges rely on three criminal statutes: a count of conspiring to defraud the government, another of conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and two counts related to corruptly obstructing a congressional proceeding. Applying each to Mr. Trump’s actions raises various complexities, according to a range of criminal law experts.​

​

At the same time, the indictment hints at how Mr. Smith is trying to sidestep legal pitfalls and potential defenses. He began with an unusual preamble that reads like an opening statement at trial, acknowledging that Mr. Trump had a right to challenge the election results in court and even to lie about them, but drawing a distinction with the defendant’s pursuit of “unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.”​

​

While the indictment is sprawling in laying out a case against Mr. Trump, it brings a selective lens on the multifaceted efforts by the former president and his associates to overturn the 2020 election.​

​

“The strength of the indictment is that it is very narrowly written,” said Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., a Harvard Law School professor and former public defender. “The government is not attempting to prove too much, but rather it went for low-hanging fruit.”​

​

For one, Mr. Smith said little about the violent events of Jan. 6, leaving out vast amounts of evidence in the report by a House committee that separately investigated the matter. He focused more on a brazen plan to recruit false slates of electors from swing states and a pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence to block the congressional certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.​

​

That choice dovetails with Mr. Smith’s decision not to charge Mr. Trump with inciting an insurrection or seditious conspiracy — potential charges the House committee recommended. By eschewing them, he avoided having the case focus on the inflammatory but occasionally ambiguous remarks Mr. Trump made to his supporters as they morphed into a mob, avoiding tough First Amendment objections that defense lawyers could raise.​

 

[F1fan]

I suppose anything is possible at this point. I've noticed a good portion of the electorate seems rather fickle and unsettled these days, so it's hard to tell which way they'll go. I don't think Trump has enough hardcore support to win the election, but then, neither does Biden. It's the swing states and the swing voters - the perpetually undecided fence-sitters who will end up playing a key role - as they usually do.

My concern is more apathy by voters than support for Trump. Trump only lost by 42,000 votes in four swing states in 2020, and that was with record voting, and after Trump's disasterous handling of the pandemic. I don't see the civic passion against Trump this cycle. There is passion against Trump for those who value the law, justice and emocracy, and for Trump by most conservatives who are buying into disinformation against the DOJ and the Biden adminstration, including false claims of criminality aginst Biden. I can see these swing states go for Trump. There is a chance for Biden to win Florida since there is an abortion access question on their ballot. A Trump conviction might be enough to sway public support for him. The man is disturbed and unfit.

Of course, it will all be moot if Trump is kicked off the ballot and declared ineligible to run for office. I don't know what the political fallout could be over that. Are the remaining Republicans willing and able to try to restrain or keep the MAGA Republicans under some measure of positive control? Or will they lose control of the herd entirely?

Now that I have thought about how this could affect the public my view is that Trump should be allowed to be on the ballots. It's good this case is being heard soon so whatever the outcome it will be many months before the election. As we see many republicans are reacting with baseless acts against Biden, like the impeachment inquiry and threats of kicking Biden off of ballots, for baseless reasons.

One funny report was how disturbed and angry Trump became when having to stand when judges entered court rooms. It's not a surprise, but it further illustrates how petty he is, and how priviledged he sees himself, and above the standards of the legal system. The man is disturbed and unfit.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I'm getting tired of using this analogy, but I'm going to attempt to use it once more to illustrate this:

Let's imagine I, very publicly, accused you of being a paedophile. Let's even say that, because of either some false information or my own personal ignorance, I happen to genuinely believe it. Now, let's say I have thousands of people for whom I am in a position of influence over (like, say, I'm an established and elected representative of these people) and I tell all of those people that you're a paedophile. I keep doing this over and over, despite repeated court cases raised by you against all of my claims that show that there is no evidence you have ever - or would ever - abuse children in any way. Regardless of this, and regardless of any failure of any investigation to find any evidence that you would ever abuse children, I keep insisting to all of the people I have influence over that you are a paedophile.

Then, one day, I arrange a rally at which I repeat all of my claims about you. I tell them it's a travesty that you haven't been brought to justice, and we need to "fight like hell" to protect children from you, and that we should all march on your home. But I tell people to march "peacefully". Nevertheless, the thousands of people at the rally descend on your home, violence breaks out, they break into your home and hurt you and your family.

Now, am I - in any way - responsible for that crowd hurting you and your family? Because the answer is obviously yes. Just because I never told them to attack you, and even if I explicitly told them not to, the fact of the matter is that that group of people were only there because of my instruction, they were only angered by my constant allegations and my reckless disregard for facts, my ignoring of legal processes and my careless attitude towards your safety.

By any reasonable standard, both moral and legal, I am responsible for that happening. This should not be difficult to understand. I am certain there are times when you have blamed politicians for consequences of their words or actions that are not necessarily directly attributable to something they simply TOLD people to do. People on both sides of the political divide do this. How many people on this forum blame BLM for riots, despite the fact that BLM explicitly call for non-violence? It's not uncommon.

I mean, think about it. If you're consistent, you can never hold anyone accountable for anything other than the things they explicitly said was the intended consequence of their action. Do you seriously want to advocate for the position that we cannot hold POLITICIANS (Y'know, that one group of people most widely known for speaking in ways designed to MASK OR OBFUSCATE THEIR INTENTIONS AND REDUCE THEIR CULPABILITY) accountable for their actions unless they explicitly stated that the outcomes of their actions were intentional? Think about that position for five seconds.

I say you are not responsible for the violence because you never told them to commit violence. Trump questioned an election results, that is his right or any politicians right to do so publicly. If a politician say s to harm someone or commit violence then they are accountable. This is not what happened. Saying to fight like hell does not mean violence. It is a term used by many politicians over the years. Even HIllary and Obama used similar language.

Are you going to be consistent with what you believe and condemn the comments by Biden likening Trump to a nazi and he will end democracy if elected? These are inflammatory and could lead to violence against Trump if someone takes him seriously.

There's a big difference between questioning election results and outright and repeatedly claiming to voters that the election WAS FRAUDULENT, making specific claims about HOW THE ELECTION WAS FALSE and repeatedly stating the election WAS STOLEN despite all investigations finding no evidence and multiple court cases completely rejecting my claims, and then using these claims to rally a huge number of people I have influence over into marching directly to the place where the vote was being ratified ON THE DAY IT WAS BEING RATIFIED under the belief that the people doing so were traitors to the country.

To use my analogy above, "So what if I claimed you're a paedophile? Can no one question whether someone is a paedophile or not?"

Seriously, your argument appears to be "So what if actions have consequences? Nobody should be considered responsible for the direct and obvious consequences of their actions!", which is a moral standard I am willing to believe you would never, ever dream of applying to people you aren't politically aligned with.

No, my argument is you want to punish Trump for your interpretation of what he meant not actually what he said. Punishing people for speech that you have to interpret a certain way to make it violent is tyrannical. You have to make people accountable for what they actually say and not interpret a different meaning. He never called for violence and tweeted several times to stop the violence and respect the police.

Should HIllary Clinton get punished for her comments about the 2016 election? She still cannot admit she lost even though there is not good evidence that she did win.