Make Trump accountable before midterms

[commonsense]

Whether Trump will be held accountable and what he might be accountable for are interesting topics but not the primary focus of this thread.

Whether prosecution of Trump for his Jan 6 actions should begin before midterm elections in 2022 or not—that is the question being posed here.

If you were a prosecuting attorney in the DOJ, what would you do? Would you prosecute later? Or prosecute at all? How would you deny cries regarding the trial being a political witch hunt?

[Walker]

The Prime Directive.

[Walker]

The 14 amendment of the US Constitution forbids an insurrectionist from holding public office.

This explains why you hear the word insurrectionist spoken so much these days by the January 6 Kanga-Court, or Roo-Court if your prefer.

They figure that if they throw that word at Trump enough, it will stick like shit.

(Credit Mark Levin for pointing this out)

[promethean75]

why I'd do what any prosecutor would do. make the decision that is in my own most favor and for my own most benefit. whether or not the orangutan is guilty of some crime is irrelevant. the prosecutor will do whatever makes him look the best to those he has to impress to improve his career standing and the size of his pockets. also the prosecutor's own political orientations will effect his decisioning process.

it really doesnt matter what happens in clown world tho. nothing fundamentally matters or changes long as the west is running a bi-partisan dual party pseudo-representational government at ideological odds with its own fuckin self.

even if everything in government went perfectly right and there were no water gates or capitol insurrections or suspicions of voter fraud, etc., etc., it still wouldn't be werf a fuck to the working classes. government on its best day is still frivolous nonsense to the working citizens.

so political soap operas about criminal charges against wealthy orangutans and renegade conspiracy podcast armchair cowboys (bannon) are neither here nor there. You need a whole government overhaul bruh if you tryna fix the west.

[commonsense]

The 14 amendment of the US Constitution forbids an insurrectionist from holding public office.

This explains why you hear the word insurrectionist spoken so much these days by the January 6 Kanga-Court, or Roo-Court if your prefer.

They figure that if they throw that word at Trump enough, it will stick like shit.

(Credit Mark Levin for pointing this out)

Do you think the term, insurrectionist, will affect the midterms this fall?

[commonsense]

why I'd do what any prosecutor would do. make the decision that is in my own most favor and for my own most benefit. whether or not the orangutan is guilty of some crime is irrelevant. the prosecutor will do whatever makes him look the best to those he has to impress to improve his career standing and the size of his pockets. also the prosecutor's own political orientations will effect his decisioning process.

it really doesnt matter what happens in clown world tho. nothing fundamentally matters or changes long as the west is running a bi-partisan dual party pseudo-representational government at ideological odds with its own fuckin self.

even if everything in government went perfectly right and there were no water gates or capitol insurrections or suspicions of voter fraud, etc., etc., it still wouldn't be werf a fuck to the working classes. government on its best day is still frivolous nonsense to the working citizens.

so political soap operas about criminal charges against wealthy orangutans and renegade conspiracy podcast armchair cowboys (bannon) are neither here nor there. You need a whole government overhaul bruh if you tryna fix the west.

Let’s say that no one is trying to fix the West at this point. Then what factors might benefit a prosecutor such as to influence the decision about prosecuting?

[Walker]

The 14 amendment of the US Constitution forbids an insurrectionist from holding public office.

This explains why you hear the word insurrectionist spoken so much these days by the January 6 Kanga-Court, or Roo-Court if your prefer.

They figure that if they throw that word at Trump enough, it will stick like shit.

(Credit Mark Levin for pointing this out)

Do you think the term, insurrectionist, will affect the midterms this fall?

Propaganda has huge effects on the herd.

These days, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats sweep the midterms, or Biden win the next presidency. Wouldn't be surprised at all after the last election. After all, he was elected as the most popular president in history. Many of the election laws created out of the "crisis" caused by the common-cold's first cousin still stand, and there is rich potential for many more crisis ... many more opportunities for more changes in elections laws rather than make elections more honest and fair ... all of which benefits the Democrats.

Insurrection.

Legally, not a chance that sticks. But these days, who needs legal? Who needs any stinking badges?



The mea culpas over Biden and his corrupt family make me want to vomit.

[Gary Childress]

Whether Trump will be held accountable and what he might be accountable for are interesting topics but not the primary focus of this thread.

Whether prosecution of Trump for his Jan 6 actions should begin before midterm elections in 2022 or not—that is the question being posed here.

If you were a prosecuting attorney in the DOJ, what would you do? Would you prosecute later? Or prosecute at all? How would you deny cries regarding the trial being a political witch hunt?

Personally, I would point out that it was a hostile seizure of the nation's capital, not an insignificant event, and hold a trial according to whatever the powers that be can decide on. I could care less about the political jockying. The two parties are going to try to bend things in their favor regardless. I would just do my job and get to the bottom of what happened.

[promethean75]

it's just a nice little situation involving freedom of speech as it pertains to this particular legal problem: if Trump issued no clear command to anyone at any time to 'violently storm the building', he should be exempt of responsibility... and anything else he said or expressed during this period that wasn't blatantly seditious should be protected by his freedom of speech.

you can't make him legally responsible for the insurrection only because the kind of speech he might have engaged in was disruptive and destabilizing. that's incidental pal and in no way incriminates the speaker. but I'm not defending trumpf. let's be clear. what I'm sayin is look at the ambiguity of what constitutes a proper interpretation of what 'conspire' and 'inspire' can be made to mean in legal language. there's a yuge grey area that prosecutor's often exploit to get an indictment.

[Walker]

Personally, I would point out that it was a hostile seizure of the nation's capital, not an insignificant event, and hold a trial according to whatever the powers that be can decide on. I could care less about the political jockying. The two parties are going to try to bend things in their favor regardless. I would just do my job and get to the bottom of what happened.

A Kangaroo Court isn't the way to do it.

An investigation into Speaker Pelosi's legal negligence of the Speaker's duties, is the way to do it.

Plain and simple, no politics involved with that approach.

You do realize that the purpose of the Kangaroo Court is to prevent Trump from running for president, or to discredit him if he does run. That is the purpose.

[commonsense]

Personally, I would point out that it was a hostile seizure of the nation's capital, not an insignificant event, and hold a trial according to whatever the powers that be can decide on. I could care less about the political jockying. The two parties are going to try to bend things in their favor regardless. I would just do my job and get to the bottom of what happened.

A Kangaroo Court isn't the way to do it.

An investigation into Speaker Pelosi's legal negligence of the Speaker's duties, is the way to do it.

Plain and simple, no politics involved with that approach.

You do realize that the purpose of the Kangaroo Court is to prevent Trump from running for president, or to discredit him if he does run. That is the purpose.

The purpose is Justice. The byproduct is political.

[Gary Childress]

Personally, I would point out that it was a hostile seizure of the nation's capital, not an insignificant event, and hold a trial according to whatever the powers that be can decide on. I could care less about the political jockying. The two parties are going to try to bend things in their favor regardless. I would just do my job and get to the bottom of what happened.

A Kangaroo Court isn't the way to do it.

An investigation into Speaker Pelosi's legal negligence of the Speaker's duties, is the way to do it.

Plain and simple, no politics involved with that approach.

You do realize that the purpose of the Kangaroo Court is to prevent Trump from running for president, or to discredit him if he does run. That is the purpose.

Sure, investigate both Pelosi and Trump. Pelosi for lax security and Trump for inciting a revolt.

[Gary Childress]

Chomsky on the incident:

https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-c ... 23-putsch/

[Walker]

Sure, investigate both Pelosi and Trump. Pelosi for lax security and Trump for inciting a revolt.

They're calling it an insurrection, not a revolt, however there's no evidence that it was either one. No weapons, except for the murder of a military veteran that has gone unanswered. She was shot in the neck by a government agent. If you were paying attention*, you would know this.

An insurrection without weapons? Come on Gary. Think.

Pelosi will not be investigated for her dereliction of duty, which caused the lax security that would normally have been beefed up, since they knew days in advance that there would be a lot of people there demonstrating. It's what they do when they know there will be a lot of people around. It's routine. That routine was not followed, in fact. No beefing up, Biff. If you were paying attention to more than propaganda, you would know this, Gary *.

You need to care at least a little bit to educate yourself and think clearly with the facts, to perceive what's going on.

"Should" ain't got nothin' to do with pickin' cotton, however, The ShouldBe would make a good name for a toy, like a child's vacuum cleaner. For the Left, Jan. 6 is a ShouldBe. Toy Court.


* Jan. 6, Kanga-court is all about Trump. Pelosi isn't investigating herself. She is off-limits.

[Age]

Sure, investigate both Pelosi and Trump. Pelosi for lax security and Trump for inciting a revolt.

They're calling it an insurrection, not a revolt, however there's no evidence that it was either one. No weapons, except for the murder of a military veteran that has gone unanswered. She was shot in the neck by a government agent. If you were paying attention*, you would know this.

An insurrection without weapons? Come on Gary. Think.

Pelosi will not be investigated for her dereliction of duty, which caused the lax security that would normally have been beefed up, since they knew days in advance that there would be a lot of people there demonstrating. If you were paying attention to more than propaganda, you would know this, Gary *.

You need to care at least a little bit to educate yourself and think clearly with the facts, to perceive what's going on.


* Jan. 6, Kanga-court is all about Trump. Pelosi isn't investigating herself. She is off-limits.

Has "donald trump" done anything wrong in your view?

If yes, then what exactly?

And, in fact, could "donald trump" do anything wrong in your view?