Originally posted by Ronson
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of J6 Protester
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
I wouldn't say Trump incited the riot even at that. He may have been ambivalent about the riot due to the apparent results of the election, but that's not incitement.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ronson View Post
I take into account all of Trump's public comments leading up to that day. The rioters showed up before J6, before Trump said anything on J6. They were fired up ahead of time.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
Does that really count as "inciting a riot", though? I always took that to mean something more immediate, like whipping a crowd into a frenzy and not making comments over a long period of time.
Tom Bradley caused the 1992 L.A. riots due to his inflamed rhetoric. He even later admitted it. IIRC, the riot started about 1-to-2 hours after his speech.
People didn't show up at the Capitol on J6 on a whim. They were angry. Trump was insisting the election was stolen and many of the rioters believe/believed that and they were incensed. If Trump believes the election was stolen from him, that's his right. It's his right to express that. Hillary thinks the same thing about 2016. But his angry tweets and comments before J6 is what fired up the rioters, and I think he should take responsibility for at least some of that result. But he won't.
I'm OK with it because I know Trump is not going to get a brownie badge for admitting faults. The Leftist media will jump all over him if he acknowledged any responsibility. Public figures can be reckless in their rhetoric and can cause violence. They need to be more careful than they are.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ronson View Post
That says it all in a nutshell. Instead of saying "inciting a riot" - something I could actually agree with - you say "inciting an insurrection", which is ridiculous on the face of it.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ronson View Post
Oh, I don't think there's time limit. Why would there be?
Tom Bradley caused the 1992 L.A. riots due to his inflamed rhetoric. He even later admitted it. IIRC, the riot started about 1-to-2 hours after his speech.
People didn't show up at the Capitol on J6 on a whim. They were angry. Trump was insisting the election was stolen and many of the rioters believe/believed that and they were incensed. If Trump believes the election was stolen from him, that's his right. It's his right to express that. Hillary thinks the same thing about 2016. But his angry tweets and comments before J6 is what fired up the rioters, and I think he should take responsibility for at least some of that result. But he won't.
I'm OK with it because I know Trump is not going to get a brownie badge for admitting faults. The Leftist media will jump all over him if he acknowledged any responsibility. Public figures can be reckless in their rhetoric and can cause violence. They need to be more careful than they are.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
Does that really count as "inciting a riot", though? I always took that to mean something more immediate, like whipping a crowd into a frenzy and not making comments over a long period of time.Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
A riot breaking out one to two hours after a speech where the crowd was whipped up I think reasonably qualifies as "immediate" as there is a clear cause and effect. Not being familiar with the Bradley case, I don't know what he actually said. Did he encourage the crowd to become violent?
In Trump's case, I don't think he ever called on his supporters to do anything like what happened on January 6, so, in my opinion, it's harder to prove cause and effect.
Comment
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
My friends who attended just the rally portion had no clue any violence was in the offing. Nothing they'd heard that inspired them to attend, and nothing they heard or encountered while there, seemed to be "inciting."
I can support Trump without being a fan of his. He's flawed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSupreme Court rules on Trump Immunity case:
Just released, being updated live.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ter-rcna149135
Supreme Court rules Trump has some immunity in federal election interference case, further delaying trial
The legal question on whether a former president has immunity from prosecution for official acts had never come before the court.
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Donald Trump has immunity for some of his alleged conduct as president in his federal election interference case, but maybe not for other actions, adding another obstacle to a trial taking place.
In a novel and potentially consequential case on the limits of presidential power, the justices on a 6-3 vote on ideological lines rejected Trump’s broad claim of immunity, meaning the charges will not be dismissed, but said some actions closely related to his core duties as president are off-limits to prosecutors.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said that further proceedings are needed in lower courts are needed to determine what conduct he can be prosecuted for.
What that means for the case going forward remains to be seen. Trump’s lawyer conceded in the oral argument in April that at least some of the allegations in the indictment concern private conduct that would not be protected by any immunity defense. Likewise, the Justice Department lawyer arguing the case for special counsel Jack Smith said the prosecution could go ahead even if some official acts were protected.
At a minimum, there will be further proceedings before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine what, if any, of the other conduct alleged in the indictment is protected.
Even if the new proceedings do not take much time, there is little chance for the trial to conclude before Election Day. It had previously been suggested that a trial would not start until at least three months after the Supreme Court ruling, which would mean it would potentially not start until early October at the earliest. The trial itself could last up to 12 weeks.
The case put the national spotlight on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that includes three justices Trump appointed. The court handed Trump an election-year boost when it ruled in March that Colorado could not kick him off the ballot.
The justices were also criticized for their delay in taking up Trump’s appeal, which some view in itself as a victory for him as it meant the trial could not take place in March as originally planned.
Legally speaking, the case was unprecedented, as no president has ever been prosecuted after leaving office. Therefore, the court was wrestling with a legal question that had never come before it: whether a president has some form of immunity for his core duties derived from the constitutional principle of separation of powers, which delineates the powers of the presidency in relation to other branches of government.
The legal argument focused on Trump’s official acts, with both sides agreeing that a former president does not have immunity for personal conduct.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seanD, Yesterday, 01:20 PM
|
14 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
![]()
by seanD
Today, 11:19 AM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 09:42 AM
|
129 responses
579 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 12:30 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 05:32 AM
|
14 responses
103 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Today, 06:41 AM
|
||
Started by Slave4Christ, 06-30-2024, 07:59 PM
|
13 responses
113 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 04:33 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 06-29-2024, 03:49 PM
|
39 responses
239 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 12:29 PM
|
Comment