Stasi Raid Mar-a-Lago

[seer]

So neither of us, pinning the fail on you. Do you ever read posts before responding, or is it always fire, ready, aim?

I asked Shuny:

Where did I justify violence?

You quoted me:

Do they want to push Trump voters to violence? It seems so...

You implied that I was justifying violence, if not what did you mean?

[seer]

Looks like he said that he rejects advocation of violence from both sides in one sentence, and then in another says that you were justifying violence. Doesn't seem to be saying you were advocating. But rather that you were justifying.

If I was justifying I would have said so. Stating an obvious possible consequence is not a justification.

[Gondwanaland]

Something to think about.

This isn't just about Trump's possession of documents that belong to the National Archives. Or even just the fact that a number were classified.

It's also about his damaging+destruction of the documents, and the handling of those classified documents. Where were the classified documents stored in his home/hotel? Who had access? Was it only Trump? Was it staff of Trump? Did they have clearance for classified documents? How were the documents storedin the room? Were they secured? Sitting in boxes?

This is a hotel and resort - do hotel staff have the ability to make keys to the room and access it for cleaning or maintenance? Did they? Are there records of who entered the room? Were there cameras in the room? Who had access to the cameras and footage if any if the documents were exposed to the camera?

And how were the documents transported there in the first place? In secured bags/envelopes with a chain of custody list? Just sitting in boxes? If the latter then who had access to the boxes during transit?

[Juvenal]

Stating an obvious possible consequence is not a justification.

Tomato, defending mob violence, what’s the difference? You were pinning the blame on the felonious consequence on the people following the law.

[Gondwanaland]

If I was justifying I would have said so. Stating an obvious possible consequence is not a justification.

Okay but your objection was not to the term "justifying"

[seer]

Tomato, defending mob violence, what’s the difference? You were pinning the blame on the felonious consequence on the people following the law.

Where did I defend mob violence? Stating a possible consequence is not a defense. So stop lying...

[Mountain Man]

By all accounts Garland himself, a former federal judge and nominee for the Supreme Court, approved the warrant. It’s a safe bet he checked all the i’s and t’s before passing on it.

I don't think that's a safe bet at all. Garland has a done a lot of questionable stuff as attorney general.

[seer]

Okay but your objection was not to the term "justifying"

Yes it was to Shuny...

And I quote

I reject the advocate of violence by both sides, but your being the overwhelming hypocrite justifying violence over actions taken by the Judges and the Justice Department including Trump appointees.

[Gondwanaland]

Yes it was to Shuny...

And I quote

I reject the advocate of violence by both sides, but your being the overwhelming hypocrite justifying violence over actions taken by the Judges and the Justice Department including Trump appointees.

Your objection was to the term "advocating" not to the term "justifying" maybe go back and read your own posts

[Juvenal]

Where did I defend mob violence? Stating a possible consequence is not a defense. So stop lying...

That would be here, in the post I cited.

Do they want to push Trump voters to violence? It seems so...

Blaming anyone but the mob for mob violence is a defense of the mob.

Looks like the lie’s on you.

[seer]

Your objection was to the term "advocating" not to the term "justifying" maybe go back and read your own posts

Nonsense, my first response was to justifying, I later used advocating after Juvenal put his nose in...

Shuny said:

I reject the advocate of violence by both sides, but your being the overwhelming hypocrite justifying violence over actions taken by the Judges and the Justice Department including Trump appointees.

I said

Where did I justify violence?

[seer]

Blaming anyone but the mob for mob violence is a defense of the mob.

Looks like the lie’s on you.

Obviously you live for the lie. Pointing to a possible consequence is not a justification, nor is it an excuse.

[Gondwanaland]

Nwrt

[Bill the Cat]

Blaming anyone but the mob for mob violence is a defense of the mob.

*cough* Jan 6 *cough*

[Juvenal]

*cough* Jan 6 *cough*

Exactly right. Trump’s culpability has been used by J6 rioters as a defense since day one.

‘I Answered the Call of My President’: Rioters Say Trump Urged Them On
The defense from Trump supporters arrested in the Capitol assault is emerging in court papers and interviews — and could play a role in impeachment proceedings.
.

In the two weeks since a raging mob stormed the Capitol, President Trump has shown no sign that he believes he shares responsibility for the worst incursion on the halls of Congress in more than two centuries. Shielding him further, his loyalists have started shifting blame for the attack to an array of distracting bogeymen: far-left anti-fascists, Black Lives Matter activists, even vague conspiracies of a setup involving Vice President Mike Pence.

But one group of people has already come forward and directly implicated Mr. Trump in the riot at the Capitol: some of his own supporters who were arrested while taking part in it. In court papers and interviews, at least four pro-Trump rioters have said they joined the march that spiraled into violence in part because the president encouraged them to do so.

In the past few days, a retired firefighter charged with assaulting members of the Capitol Police force told a friend he went to the building following “the president’s instructions,” according to a criminal complaint, and a Texas real estate agent accused of breaching the building told a reporter that by protesting in Washington, she had “answered the call of my president.”

A Virginia man has told the F.B.I. that he and his cousin marched on the Capitol because Mr. Trump said “something about taking Pennsylvania Avenue.” And a lawyer for the so-called QAnon Shaman — who invaded the building in a Viking costume — said that Mr. Trump was culpable, and he planned to ask the White House for a pardon.

“Does our president bear responsibility?” the lawyer, Al Watkins, told The New York Times. “Hell, yes, he does.”