So if Trump gets in again we just roll over and play dead.
What part of "Trump has pretty much said if he gets in again he will make himself a dictator" don't you get?
I wonder if the MAGAts understand that they are not the only Americans who can buy guns...
If dudalb's "civil war" really does break out, there is plenty of well-armed opposition to these hillbillies, many of them with recent military training. Just one well-aimed sniper shot from a convenient grassy knoll, or a drone strike controlled from further afar, and Donny's "reign" will come to a sudden and irreversible Sopranos-style end.
So what then, MAGAts? The core of your belief system, the god-king whose ascendancy was your only goal, is dust. Still fight on? If so, what for? He ain't coming back, so there's nothing to gain! Is there another "Trump" in the wings to take up the fight? Not if they saw what happened to the last one!
What the Trumptrash don't understand, nor do those wringing hands about a civil war is that a gun isn't combat power. Combat power is lethality in an organized, trained, disciplined force. They're still a domestic enemy but they aren't an army.
As the enemy learned from the enemy in Michigan, they lack cohesion, discipline and training. Once they did anything above a few people they got infiltrated and fell apart.
The members of the enemy with gun tend towards the unintelligent, lack training, have no discipline and have to organizational skills of a chimp on acid. They can't bring their individually armed and equipped members together and strike a center of gravity.
When the enemy mob attack the Capitol, they stopped when they encountered a smaller force that was disciplined and organized. That force only fired a few rounds (too few, Ashley Babbit was a good start).
The assumption here seems to be that Trump’s supporters will try to start a civil war by opposing the lawful election of Biden. What about the converse scenario, where Trump is elected and installs loyalists in every post he can, who then proceed to dismantle the machinery of democracy, followed by Trump calling off the 2028 election on the pretext of a manufactured crisis? Would anyone rebel? Might that be the start of a civil war?
Dave
And how were these people supposed to get into the Senate chamber - where they were not legally allowed and was guarded by law enforcement - non-violently?
And how were these people supposed to get into the Senate chamber - where they were not legally allowed and was guarded by law enforcement - non-violently?
I am thinking more of armed resistence to Trump trying to make himself a dictator if he gets back in..which he has pretty much said he will do.
Do we know for a fact that the electoral count was not normally open to public viewing?
I think it's next to the rule that says the President taking a dump in the morning is not normally open for public viewing.
Eta: the public viewing galleries are not open to the public during joint meetings or joint sessions. Even during normal public viewing times for the galleries, a pass is required and secured in advance. No, Trump did not think they had secured passes. Yes, he knew he was inciting imminent lawless action.
https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/visit/know-before-you-go/watching-congress-in-session
Good to know. This info will be used to refute any claims that he wanted his fans to go to the Senate and House chambers and peacefully make their feelings heard.
With no intention of being a grammar scold, I’ve long found it interesting that the past tense of some verbs is somewhat counterintuitive. The correct form of the above should actually be “Trump has pleaded not guilty.”Trump has pled not guilty.
<snip>
Good to know. This info will be used to refute any claims that he wanted his fans to go to the Senate and House chambers and peacefully make their feelings heard.
With no intention of being a grammar scold, I’ve long found it interesting that the past tense of some verbs is somewhat counterintuitive. The correct form of the above should actually be “Trump has pleaded not guilty.”
There are exceptions galore. The past tense of “Trump drinks Not Guilty IPA” is not “Trump drinked” but “Trump drank a pint of that frosty beverage.”
A reminder to be careful. You’ll want to say Trump was hanged, not hung.
With no intention of being a grammar scold, I’ve long found it interesting that the past tense of some verbs is somewhat counterintuitive. The correct form of the above should actually be “Trump has pleaded not guilty.”
Dictionary.com says, "pleaded or pled." Ahddictionary.com says "pleaded, pled, or plead."
With no intention of being a grammar scold, I’ve long found it interesting that the past tense of some verbs is somewhat counterintuitive. The correct form of the above should actually be “Trump has pleaded not guilty.”
There are exceptions galore. The past tense of “Trump drinks Not Guilty IPA” is not “Trump drinked” but “Trump drank a pint of that frosty beverage.”
A reminder to be careful. You’ll want to say Trump was hanged, not hung.
- He also used phrases like "fight like hell", and "you won't have a republican party if you don't get tougher". Phrasing like 'fight' and 'tough' are contradictory to the phrasing of 'peaceful'.
- He suggested they disconnect the metal detectors at his rallies (because "they aren't here to hurt me", hinting that he knew the crowd had weapons)
- He knew what his supporters were like (remember, once of them sent a pipe bomb to media organizers after all his "fake news" claims). "My pit bull has rabies, but I told him to sit and be good, so I can't be blamed if he attacks someone"
- He has called for violence in the past (for example telling people that if the assault protestors at his rallies he will pay for their defense). Even if he called for "peace" THIS time, some of his supporters probably remember the times where he did say "violence is good'.
- once violence DID occur he did nothing to curtail it for over an hour (no tweets asking people to pull back, no emergency new broadcast asking people to leave the capitol building, etc.) despite being urged to by multiple people. Which means that at the very least he approved of the violence while it was happening. "I didn't initially want them to beat up police but its cool that they did" isn't a very good defense.
- At the very end, after multiple police officers were assaulted, after windows were smashed and feces smeared on the walls, he told the protestors he "loved them". And he has suggested he will pardon some/all of the terrorists.
Turn off the metal detectors, they aren't after me.
And the clincher, waiting almost 3 hours to put a stop to it.
Oh, and there was a purposeful effort to limit police backup IIRC from the committee testimony.
My favorites are the fact that he not only didn't call on the coup-attempters to stop at first, but was giggling with giddy glee as he watched it on TV, plus some more things from his background before his speech there that day. Along with his history of repeatedly advocating for violence in his previous public appearances on his endless campaign even while he was already President, there's also the time he predicted that his side would win a civil war because they're the ones with the guns, and, best of all, his idea, before he got elected, of how to solve the problem if Hillary had won: that it could be handled by the "Second Amendment people".Point 87 of the indictment document has Trump repeatedly urging his supporters in late December to go to Washington on Jan 6 to protest the "stolen election". "Will be wild".
The "fight like hell" is not a lone item, which is good for the prosecution.
After doing so, would you have led the horse, or would you have lead the horse?You can lead a horse to a punchline…
I don't believe (I could be wrong) that initiating the riot is key to the charges.Yes, there's also "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
... four felony charges in this case, for conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; conspiracy against rights and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don't believe (I could be wrong) that initiating the riot is key to the charges. Newsweek summary
Obstructing the official proceeding includes a wide range of acts:
The whole fake electors schemeThe evidence he recruited the mob and riled them up might be there. But it's clear to me that inciting the riot is not needed to convict Trump of obstructing the official proceeding.
Successfully pressuring Senators to refuse to certify the electors
Unsuccessfully pressuring Pence to refuse to certify the electors
Pressuring Raffensperger to fake the vote count in Georgia
There might be evidence Trump called other election officials in other states
Not acting to stop the Capitol riot
With these Trump threats against prosecutors (he will come "after them") wouldn't it be best to just arrest him? He after all agreed to no threats. That would speed up getting his case to court.
Tweet with summary
1. Yambo issues a threat on Social Media.
2. Within hours, DOJ seeks a protective order to prevent Yambo from leaking sensitive discovery materials to the public.
3. Judge orders Yambo to respond to the protective order by Monday.
4. Yambo quickly files to seek a delay in responding to the protective order, claiming he doesn’t have the time to review it.
5. DOJ claps back at Yambo, stating he found time to file for a delay, but not time to review a 5-page order.
You’re all caught up
https://twitter.com/7Veritas4/status/1687919300248498176?t=v-4SgFZxVMRR6mlwBZVW1Q&s=19
Interesting, but who is Yambo?
Trump. Orange yam + reference to Rambo being a big tough guy= Yambo.
Trump. Orange yam + reference to Rambo being a big tough guy= Yambo.
LOL. Thanks. Should have worked that out myself.![]()
Apparently Judge Chutkan ordered Trump to respond to Jack Smith’s Motion for Protective Order by 5 pm on Monday, August 7.
The federal government is looking for this order to be put in place before turning information over to Trump’s legal team as part of the discovery process. ...
The judge ordered Trump’s team to respond by Monday, but they responded with a motion Saturday asking for an extension of their time to file a response.
Judge just denied Trump's attorneys request for a 3 day extension. Monday's deadline still stands.So the threat is not immediately urgent though it is apparently somewhat urgent. And even with that the defense team wants an extension? For what?![]()
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.