One is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, the jury verdict is a choice between guilty/not guilty, which is a verdict on doubt, has nothing to do with determining innocence.
up
8 users have voted.
—
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Can’t some people be found innocent when their lawyer proves that there was no way he could have done the deed?
I think if republicans let Trump off the hook then someone should charge him criminally for his actions leading up to the event and especially during it when he was watching it unfold live and still waited to call them off. If what they did was criminal then Trump should have to answer for it. Did he wind them up and then release them to do mayhem? If no one is above the law then let’s prove it.
Of course every president is above the law, but let’s imagine what if they weren’t? Ha. Maybe we could have peace. Finally. What is the number of years that we haven’t been at war? Seven?
I have no idea how Lynn Wood has not been charged for threatening Pence unless what he is supposed to have said was misconstrued, but he was basically calling for his death. And how much of the violent talk was just that? Talking tuff because of mob mentality? It’s best that I’m not on any juries.
One is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, the jury verdict is a choice between guilty/not guilty, which is a verdict on doubt, has nothing to do with determining innocence.
up
10 users have voted.
—
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
Can’t some people be found innocent when their lawyer proves that there was no way he could have done the deed?
I think if republicans let Trump off the hook then someone should charge him criminally for his actions leading up to the event and especially during it when he was watching it unfold live and still waited to call them off. If what they did was criminal then Trump should have to answer for it. Did he wind them up and then release them to do mayhem? If no one is above the law then let’s prove it.
Of course every president is above the law, but let’s imagine what if they weren’t? Ha. Maybe we could have peace. Finally. What is the number of years that we haven’t been at war? Seven?
I have no idea how Lynn Wood has not been charged for threatening Pence unless what he is supposed to have said was misconstrued, but he was basically calling for his death. And how much of the violent talk was just that? Talking tuff because of mob mentality? It’s best that I’m not on any juries.
@snoopydawg
All a defense lawyer has to do is pick their evidence apart. They do not have to call their client to the stand, or put on any witnesses, or present any evidence. All the burden is on the government.
All defendants have a right to remain silent. Getting on the stand waives that right.
It is never about innocence, and that is actually drilled into juries' brains at voir dire, and final summation. It is about the government. Did they have enough evidence or not. Government is held to a high, very high, standard.
I do not even ask my clients if they did what they are accused of doing. All I ask is what evidence to they think might be discovered, or has been discovered, that incriminates them.
I have not been keeping up with details of the trial, but have watched a couple of horrific videos of the crowd at the rally, and it appears they had a plan, and a leader.
Can’t some people be found innocent when their lawyer proves that there was no way he could have done the deed?
I think if republicans let Trump off the hook then someone should charge him criminally for his actions leading up to the event and especially during it when he was watching it unfold live and still waited to call them off. If what they did was criminal then Trump should have to answer for it. Did he wind them up and then release them to do mayhem? If no one is above the law then let’s prove it.
Of course every president is above the law, but let’s imagine what if they weren’t? Ha. Maybe we could have peace. Finally. What is the number of years that we haven’t been at war? Seven?
I have no idea how Lynn Wood has not been charged for threatening Pence unless what he is supposed to have said was misconstrued, but he was basically calling for his death. And how much of the violent talk was just that? Talking tuff because of mob mentality? It’s best that I’m not on any juries.
up
8 users have voted.
—
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
....then we would have to account for the violent political talk broadcast by the AM radio monopolies that saturate every nook and cranny of America, from coast to coast. This is a hot, angry, right wing rash that has blanketed the nation for 30 years, with some ugly oozing during both the Obama and Trump years. During that time, the perversely deregulated monopolies have pumped out shameful misinformation, and 24/7 political and partisan hate-talk, on the the publicly-owned AM radio bandwidth. And the Left was silenced and denied access, altogether.
They were deregulated from the Fairness Doctrine, allowed Republicans to monopolize the nation's AM radio bandwidth and block the voice of the Left from communicating to Americans on these public-owned airways. This is the very broadcast spectrum that has pumped out misinformation and propaganda for 30 years, which explains why the voter preference map of this largely-rural nation is now solid red. (The only way to control disinformation while maintaining free speech is by employing a regulator, like the Fairness Doctrine. Providing equal time to correct false facts and misinformation corrects itself without authority interventions. No one is censored and everyone is engaged and empowered.)
Every day, the alt.right vilifies some centrist Democrat, calling them a "FAR Left extremist" — whom they virtually hang from a lamp post and cut off their nuts — even Nancy's. I studied hate talk radio for many years and learned a lot about violence and weapons. And paranoid agendas. Their groups have been well organized for many years. They are the kind of folks who look outside every morning, fully expecting that, one day soon, they'll see violent Civil War action making its way up the street. They're ready for it, too.
The point is, whether or not Trump would even knows the words to use in order to unleash a fast moving violent mob. I would wager that Trump has never communicated with any of them and there was certainly no collusion. I imagine some of the rioters rehearse mob violence at their militia meet-ups — they are no doubt versed in the most effective tactical formations for any situation. They definitely know just what kind of tools and objects to carry to penetrate and occupy enemy headquarters. During the week, these "patriots" are on their message boards threatening fantasy traitors (and political operatives); seditionists who are trying to over throw their government. They share a universal belief that, one day soon, swat teams are going to come for their guns, or a group of co-conspiring traitors will rig the votes and steal their elections.
These white supremacist groups have their own goals and agendas. They came to DC, armed, to see if Trump would succeed in blocking the theft of the 2020 election. Would America succumb to tyranny? This mindset is 100 percent Real to them. Who knows what Trump was thinking. He's an agent of chaos.
However, I did not hear Trump give the crowd any tactical advice. And Trump didn't say a word about breaking into the Capitol to terrorize Congress. I did not hear Trump say anything about rushing the Capitol police — but I am pretty sure that some members of the Capitol police were helping the protestors. Now, that is what Congress should be freaking out about. US politics are so dysfunctional that their own private guards could betray them at any time and hand them over to the angry mob. I also didn't hear Trump signal the Capitol police to help the protestors enter the Capitol. Unless he was speaking Q anon.
It was the Democrats first Impeachment trial — and NOT Communist China — that wasted the critical early days of the Pandemic and sent the US stumbling into a medical catastrophe. That ridiculous spectacle occupied the nation until February 9, 2020. Watching it, I saw non-stop hysteria and delusional outbursts from Democrats who were overwhelmed by Trump Derangement Syndrome. They behaved like victims of late-stage political syphillis. Meanwhile, witnesses — who witnessed nothing at all relevant — were testifying about their personal credentials and rumors they had heard — which they tried to pass off as 'evidence" of a crime that was in no way compelling to anyone watching.
An intellectually honest person would probably see those very same psychotic obsessions driving the second Impeachment.
In the Impeachment Redux, the Democrats will provide evidence of what Trump might have wanted to say, evidence of what Trump's intentions actually were, evidence of what Trump thought was going to happen, and evidence of what the mob thought they heard.
An intellectually honest person might have some doubt.
The Democrats betrayed the American People before, and they are doing it again right now. They screwed their own party by filling it with dogmatic Dinos, right-wing opportunists, and political grifters. And as weak and diminished as the Republican Party is right now, the Democrats are convinced they won't win the next election if a Republican populist, like Trump, is the candidate. I think they know in their hearts that Left isn't coming back, and neither are the Blacks. "Who are they going to vote for?" Not you. Their Neoliberal greed and their moronic deregulations set all of us on the path to failure.
The Democratic Party is the corporate, war-mongering Party, now — owned by their Big Donors and symbolizing greed and corruption. Let's all be the authors of their permanent legacy.
Are they aware their good cop/bad cop duopoly scam — where they deliver two defective candidates or platforms — both of which ignore the will of the People — won't work anymore? Do they know that calling this fakery a democracy has systematically destroyed democracy in the US, and their bad example is crashing democracies around the world? With each passing year, there are fewer of them.
Can’t some people be found innocent when their lawyer proves that there was no way he could have done the deed?
I think if republicans let Trump off the hook then someone should charge him criminally for his actions leading up to the event and especially during it when he was watching it unfold live and still waited to call them off. If what they did was criminal then Trump should have to answer for it. Did he wind them up and then release them to do mayhem? If no one is above the law then let’s prove it.
Of course every president is above the law, but let’s imagine what if they weren’t? Ha. Maybe we could have peace. Finally. What is the number of years that we haven’t been at war? Seven?
I have no idea how Lynn Wood has not been charged for threatening Pence unless what he is supposed to have said was misconstrued, but he was basically calling for his death. And how much of the violent talk was just that? Talking tuff because of mob mentality? It’s best that I’m not on any juries.
Nope. He did say that he wanted them to cheer on the good senators. And yeah his parting shot of keeping it peaceful can’t be misinterpreted. But people are trying to.
The worst thing this whole debacle showed is how corruptly stupid this country is. Limbaugh gets the presidential medal of freedom after spending 30 plus years teaching people to hate while Assange is in prison.
As I said in the EBs democrats have held all branches of government more than once starting with Clinton and then Obama now and Biden and every time we’ve asked for single payer but told that now is not the time. Okay so when will be the time? After Manchin has retired? There will always be a McConnell or a Manchin democrat to stand in the way of decent legislation. And during every one of their tenures they passed legislation that made our lives worse. How can centrists not see that?
....then we would have to account for the violent political talk broadcast by the AM radio monopolies that saturate every nook and cranny of America, from coast to coast. This is a hot, angry, right wing rash that has blanketed the nation for 30 years, with some ugly oozing during both the Obama and Trump years. During that time, the perversely deregulated monopolies have pumped out shameful misinformation, and 24/7 political and partisan hate-talk, on the the publicly-owned AM radio bandwidth. And the Left was silenced and denied access, altogether.
They were deregulated from the Fairness Doctrine, allowed Republicans to monopolize the nation's AM radio bandwidth and block the voice of the Left from communicating to Americans on these public-owned airways. This is the very broadcast spectrum that has pumped out misinformation and propaganda for 30 years, which explains why the voter preference map of this largely-rural nation is now solid red. (The only way to control disinformation while maintaining free speech is by employing a regulator, like the Fairness Doctrine. Providing equal time to correct false facts and misinformation corrects itself without authority interventions. No one is censored and everyone is engaged and empowered.)
Every day, the alt.right vilifies some centrist Democrat, calling them a "FAR Left extremist" — whom they virtually hang from a lamp post and cut off their nuts — even Nancy's. I studied hate talk radio for many years and learned a lot about violence and weapons. And paranoid agendas. Their groups have been well organized for many years. They are the kind of folks who look outside every morning, fully expecting that, one day soon, they'll see violent Civil War action making its way up the street. They're ready for it, too.
The point is, whether or not Trump would even knows the words to use in order to unleash a fast moving violent mob. I would wager that Trump has never communicated with any of them and there was certainly no collusion. I imagine some of the rioters rehearse mob violence at their militia meet-ups — they are no doubt versed in the most effective tactical formations for any situation. They definitely know just what kind of tools and objects to carry to penetrate and occupy enemy headquarters. During the week, these "patriots" are on their message boards threatening fantasy traitors (and political operatives); seditionists who are trying to over throw their government. They share a universal belief that, one day soon, swat teams are going to come for their guns, or a group of co-conspiring traitors will rig the votes and steal their elections.
These white supremacist groups have their own goals and agendas. They came to DC, armed, to see if Trump would succeed in blocking the theft of the 2020 election. Would America succumb to tyranny? This mindset is 100 percent Real to them. Who knows what Trump was thinking. He's an agent of chaos.
However, I did not hear Trump give the crowd any tactical advice. And Trump didn't say a word about breaking into the Capitol to terrorize Congress. I did not hear Trump say anything about rushing the Capitol police — but I am pretty sure that some members of the Capitol police were helping the protestors. Now, that is what Congress should be freaking out about. US politics are so dysfunctional that their own private guards could betray them at any time and hand them over to the angry mob. I also didn't hear Trump signal the Capitol police to help the protestors enter the Capitol. Unless he was speaking Q anon.
It was the Democrats first Impeachment trial — and NOT Communist China — that wasted the critical early days of the Pandemic and sent the US stumbling into a medical catastrophe. That ridiculous spectacle occupied the nation until February 9, 2020. Watching it, I saw non-stop hysteria and delusional outbursts from Democrats who were overwhelmed by Trump Derangement Syndrome. They behaved like victims of late-stage political syphillis. Meanwhile, witnesses — who witnessed nothing at all relevant — were testifying about their personal credentials and rumors they had heard — which they tried to pass off as 'evidence" of a crime that was in no way compelling to anyone watching.
An intellectually honest person would probably see those very same psychotic obsessions driving the second Impeachment.
In the Impeachment Redux, the Democrats will provide evidence of what Trump might have wanted to say, evidence of what Trump's intentions actually were, evidence of what Trump thought was going to happen, and evidence of what the mob thought they heard.
An intellectually honest person might have some doubt.
The Democrats betrayed the American People before, and they are doing it again right now. They screwed their own party by filling it with dogmatic Dinos, right-wing opportunists, and political grifters. And as weak and diminished as the Republican Party is right now, the Democrats are convinced they won't win the next election if a Republican populist, like Trump, is the candidate. I think they know in their hearts that Left isn't coming back, and neither are the Blacks. "Who are they going to vote for?" Not you. Their Neoliberal greed and their moronic deregulations set all of us on the path to failure.
The Democratic Party is the corporate, war-mongering Party, now — owned by their Big Donors and symbolizing greed and corruption. Let's all be the authors of their permanent legacy.
Are they aware their good cop/bad cop duopoly scam — where they deliver two defective candidates or platforms — both of which ignore the will of the People — won't work anymore? Do they know that calling this fakery a democracy has systematically destroyed democracy in the US, and their bad example is crashing democracies around the world? With each passing year, there are fewer of them.
Maybe that's a good thing.
up
12 users have voted.
—
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
....then we would have to account for the violent political talk broadcast by the AM radio monopolies that saturate every nook and cranny of America, from coast to coast. This is a hot, angry, right wing rash that has blanketed the nation for 30 years, with some ugly oozing during both the Obama and Trump years. During that time, the perversely deregulated monopolies have pumped out shameful misinformation, and 24/7 political and partisan hate-talk, on the the publicly-owned AM radio bandwidth. And the Left was silenced and denied access, altogether.
They were deregulated from the Fairness Doctrine, allowed Republicans to monopolize the nation's AM radio bandwidth and block the voice of the Left from communicating to Americans on these public-owned airways. This is the very broadcast spectrum that has pumped out misinformation and propaganda for 30 years, which explains why the voter preference map of this largely-rural nation is now solid red. (The only way to control disinformation while maintaining free speech is by employing a regulator, like the Fairness Doctrine. Providing equal time to correct false facts and misinformation corrects itself without authority interventions. No one is censored and everyone is engaged and empowered.)
Every day, the alt.right vilifies some centrist Democrat, calling them a "FAR Left extremist" — whom they virtually hang from a lamp post and cut off their nuts — even Nancy's. I studied hate talk radio for many years and learned a lot about violence and weapons. And paranoid agendas. Their groups have been well organized for many years. They are the kind of folks who look outside every morning, fully expecting that, one day soon, they'll see violent Civil War action making its way up the street. They're ready for it, too.
The point is, whether or not Trump would even knows the words to use in order to unleash a fast moving violent mob. I would wager that Trump has never communicated with any of them and there was certainly no collusion. I imagine some of the rioters rehearse mob violence at their militia meet-ups — they are no doubt versed in the most effective tactical formations for any situation. They definitely know just what kind of tools and objects to carry to penetrate and occupy enemy headquarters. During the week, these "patriots" are on their message boards threatening fantasy traitors (and political operatives); seditionists who are trying to over throw their government. They share a universal belief that, one day soon, swat teams are going to come for their guns, or a group of co-conspiring traitors will rig the votes and steal their elections.
These white supremacist groups have their own goals and agendas. They came to DC, armed, to see if Trump would succeed in blocking the theft of the 2020 election. Would America succumb to tyranny? This mindset is 100 percent Real to them. Who knows what Trump was thinking. He's an agent of chaos.
However, I did not hear Trump give the crowd any tactical advice. And Trump didn't say a word about breaking into the Capitol to terrorize Congress. I did not hear Trump say anything about rushing the Capitol police — but I am pretty sure that some members of the Capitol police were helping the protestors. Now, that is what Congress should be freaking out about. US politics are so dysfunctional that their own private guards could betray them at any time and hand them over to the angry mob. I also didn't hear Trump signal the Capitol police to help the protestors enter the Capitol. Unless he was speaking Q anon.
It was the Democrats first Impeachment trial — and NOT Communist China — that wasted the critical early days of the Pandemic and sent the US stumbling into a medical catastrophe. That ridiculous spectacle occupied the nation until February 9, 2020. Watching it, I saw non-stop hysteria and delusional outbursts from Democrats who were overwhelmed by Trump Derangement Syndrome. They behaved like victims of late-stage political syphillis. Meanwhile, witnesses — who witnessed nothing at all relevant — were testifying about their personal credentials and rumors they had heard — which they tried to pass off as 'evidence" of a crime that was in no way compelling to anyone watching.
An intellectually honest person would probably see those very same psychotic obsessions driving the second Impeachment.
In the Impeachment Redux, the Democrats will provide evidence of what Trump might have wanted to say, evidence of what Trump's intentions actually were, evidence of what Trump thought was going to happen, and evidence of what the mob thought they heard.
An intellectually honest person might have some doubt.
The Democrats betrayed the American People before, and they are doing it again right now. They screwed their own party by filling it with dogmatic Dinos, right-wing opportunists, and political grifters. And as weak and diminished as the Republican Party is right now, the Democrats are convinced they won't win the next election if a Republican populist, like Trump, is the candidate. I think they know in their hearts that Left isn't coming back, and neither are the Blacks. "Who are they going to vote for?" Not you. Their Neoliberal greed and their moronic deregulations set all of us on the path to failure.
The Democratic Party is the corporate, war-mongering Party, now — owned by their Big Donors and symbolizing greed and corruption. Let's all be the authors of their permanent legacy.
Are they aware their good cop/bad cop duopoly scam — where they deliver two defective candidates or platforms — both of which ignore the will of the People — won't work anymore? Do they know that calling this fakery a democracy has systematically destroyed democracy in the US, and their bad example is crashing democracies around the world? With each passing year, there are fewer of them.
Personally, I don't give a tinker's damn about Impeachment 2: This Time We Really Mean It. It doesn't change my day, the country, our precious "democracy" or anything else in anyway, shape or form. They could impeach Trump 20 times and it won't stop the decay. This is just more bread and circuses to let the government (both parties) avoid doing anything about COVID, the 99%, etc. etc.
....then we would have to account for the violent political talk broadcast by the AM radio monopolies that saturate every nook and cranny of America, from coast to coast. This is a hot, angry, right wing rash that has blanketed the nation for 30 years, with some ugly oozing during both the Obama and Trump years. During that time, the perversely deregulated monopolies have pumped out shameful misinformation, and 24/7 political and partisan hate-talk, on the the publicly-owned AM radio bandwidth. And the Left was silenced and denied access, altogether.
They were deregulated from the Fairness Doctrine, allowed Republicans to monopolize the nation's AM radio bandwidth and block the voice of the Left from communicating to Americans on these public-owned airways. This is the very broadcast spectrum that has pumped out misinformation and propaganda for 30 years, which explains why the voter preference map of this largely-rural nation is now solid red. (The only way to control disinformation while maintaining free speech is by employing a regulator, like the Fairness Doctrine. Providing equal time to correct false facts and misinformation corrects itself without authority interventions. No one is censored and everyone is engaged and empowered.)
Every day, the alt.right vilifies some centrist Democrat, calling them a "FAR Left extremist" — whom they virtually hang from a lamp post and cut off their nuts — even Nancy's. I studied hate talk radio for many years and learned a lot about violence and weapons. And paranoid agendas. Their groups have been well organized for many years. They are the kind of folks who look outside every morning, fully expecting that, one day soon, they'll see violent Civil War action making its way up the street. They're ready for it, too.
The point is, whether or not Trump would even knows the words to use in order to unleash a fast moving violent mob. I would wager that Trump has never communicated with any of them and there was certainly no collusion. I imagine some of the rioters rehearse mob violence at their militia meet-ups — they are no doubt versed in the most effective tactical formations for any situation. They definitely know just what kind of tools and objects to carry to penetrate and occupy enemy headquarters. During the week, these "patriots" are on their message boards threatening fantasy traitors (and political operatives); seditionists who are trying to over throw their government. They share a universal belief that, one day soon, swat teams are going to come for their guns, or a group of co-conspiring traitors will rig the votes and steal their elections.
These white supremacist groups have their own goals and agendas. They came to DC, armed, to see if Trump would succeed in blocking the theft of the 2020 election. Would America succumb to tyranny? This mindset is 100 percent Real to them. Who knows what Trump was thinking. He's an agent of chaos.
However, I did not hear Trump give the crowd any tactical advice. And Trump didn't say a word about breaking into the Capitol to terrorize Congress. I did not hear Trump say anything about rushing the Capitol police — but I am pretty sure that some members of the Capitol police were helping the protestors. Now, that is what Congress should be freaking out about. US politics are so dysfunctional that their own private guards could betray them at any time and hand them over to the angry mob. I also didn't hear Trump signal the Capitol police to help the protestors enter the Capitol. Unless he was speaking Q anon.
It was the Democrats first Impeachment trial — and NOT Communist China — that wasted the critical early days of the Pandemic and sent the US stumbling into a medical catastrophe. That ridiculous spectacle occupied the nation until February 9, 2020. Watching it, I saw non-stop hysteria and delusional outbursts from Democrats who were overwhelmed by Trump Derangement Syndrome. They behaved like victims of late-stage political syphillis. Meanwhile, witnesses — who witnessed nothing at all relevant — were testifying about their personal credentials and rumors they had heard — which they tried to pass off as 'evidence" of a crime that was in no way compelling to anyone watching.
An intellectually honest person would probably see those very same psychotic obsessions driving the second Impeachment.
In the Impeachment Redux, the Democrats will provide evidence of what Trump might have wanted to say, evidence of what Trump's intentions actually were, evidence of what Trump thought was going to happen, and evidence of what the mob thought they heard.
An intellectually honest person might have some doubt.
The Democrats betrayed the American People before, and they are doing it again right now. They screwed their own party by filling it with dogmatic Dinos, right-wing opportunists, and political grifters. And as weak and diminished as the Republican Party is right now, the Democrats are convinced they won't win the next election if a Republican populist, like Trump, is the candidate. I think they know in their hearts that Left isn't coming back, and neither are the Blacks. "Who are they going to vote for?" Not you. Their Neoliberal greed and their moronic deregulations set all of us on the path to failure.
The Democratic Party is the corporate, war-mongering Party, now — owned by their Big Donors and symbolizing greed and corruption. Let's all be the authors of their permanent legacy.
Are they aware their good cop/bad cop duopoly scam — where they deliver two defective candidates or platforms — both of which ignore the will of the People — won't work anymore? Do they know that calling this fakery a democracy has systematically destroyed democracy in the US, and their bad example is crashing democracies around the world? With each passing year, there are fewer of them.
Maybe that's a good thing.
up
8 users have voted.
—
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
@on the cusp
After the last 3 days watching the presentation of prosecution's case, I have no doubts what so ever.
To me, there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, clearly with cause and effect at play between what he said and how his supporters acted, and this wasn't just a one off event, but a months long campaign to stay in power irregardless of what the election outcome would be. There was clear motive and intent.
The defense's arguments so far, to me, are like a screen door held wide open trying to keep the cold out.
As Thomas Paine once said, “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”
Trump is a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding Everything he doesn't like, in contempt!
And he still hasn't conceded the election. Clearly he is in a severe mental crisis and needs serious, professional counseling.
Plus a few decades in jail might mellow him out a bit. (snark)
One is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, the jury verdict is a choice between guilty/not guilty, which is a verdict on doubt, has nothing to do with determining innocence.
up
14 users have voted.
—
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
But impeachment is not criminal trial and I don't think even acknowledging his mental illness(es) would save him from conviction, if there were any serious consideration of holding him accountable.
Here in reality he doesn't actually need a defense of any kind. He could go in front of the senate himself and say "Hell yes, I ordered my personal army of devotees to break in here and threaten you all and maybe kill a few of you, just those who deserve it, you know who you are! It's SAD they didn't get to you!" and his sycophants in the senate would still let him off the hook.
Many people have been going on and on about how awful and pitiful his defense lawyers are ... but what does it matter? The outcome was a foregone conclusion before the "trial" ever started. That's what "justice" means, doncha know.
#1 After the last 3 days watching the presentation of prosecution's case, I have no doubts what so ever.
To me, there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, clearly with cause and effect at play between what he said and how his supporters acted, and this wasn't just a one off event, but a months long campaign to stay in power irregardless of what the election outcome would be. There was clear motive and intent.
The defense's arguments so far, to me, are like a screen door held wide open trying to keep the cold out.
As Thomas Paine once said, “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”
Trump is a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding Everything he doesn't like, in contempt!
And he still hasn't conceded the election. Clearly he is in a severe mental crisis and needs serious, professional counseling.
Plus a few decades in jail might mellow him out a bit. (snark)
even show up and let that be his defense. Because seriously who ever gave it a 1 second thought that republicans would convict him? Plus it looks like democrats are over charging Trump and not giving republicans a choice of convicting him on a lesser charge. Like felony rioting? I think that is going to be what his supporters are being charged with and it comes with a 10 year sentence curtesy of Trump’s own executive order. lol...seriously. Could republicans go for the lesser charge? Possibly. But they should get the chance to. IMO. On the cusp? Am I all wet?
But impeachment is not criminal trial and I don't think even acknowledging his mental illness(es) would save him from conviction, if there were any serious consideration of holding him accountable.
Here in reality he doesn't actually need a defense of any kind. He could go in front of the senate himself and say "Hell yes, I ordered my personal army of devotees to break in here and threaten you all and maybe kill a few of you, just those who deserve it, you know who you are! It's SAD they didn't get to you!" and his sycophants in the senate would still let him off the hook.
Many people have been going on and on about how awful and pitiful his defense lawyers are ... but what does it matter? The outcome was a foregone conclusion before the "trial" ever started. That's what "justice" means, doncha know.
up
6 users have voted.
—
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
I completely agree that Trump should not have bothered to send any defense lawyers. He should have simply ignored the whole thing since there was never any chance he'd be convicted.
I disagree that there is any chance whatsoever that there was any lesser charge that would have gotten republicans to convict. They would never convict him for anything, period.
If anyone asked me, I would say the mistake was in tying his responsibility to only that one speech he made on the morning of the riot. Taken out of context of everything else he did over the course of several months to bring it to that point, that one speech can be spun as not enough. But his incitement of that mob was not by any means a one-day event.
Some of his followers are now saying directly that they acted on (what they considered to be) his "call to duty" to them, or his "orders" to do exactly what they did. Wouldn't it be interesting to have some of them appear as witnesses, and ask them to explain why they thought that?
even show up and let that be his defense. Because seriously who ever gave it a 1 second thought that republicans would convict him? Plus it looks like democrats are over charging Trump and not giving republicans a choice of convicting him on a lesser charge. Like felony rioting? I think that is going to be what his supporters are being charged with and it comes with a 10 year sentence curtesy of Trump’s own executive order. lol...seriously. Could republicans go for the lesser charge? Possibly. But they should get the chance to. IMO. On the cusp? Am I all wet?
Wouldn't it be interesting to have some of them appear as witnesses, and ask them to explain why they thought that?
Democrats should have been calling those people as witnesses in the house hearings and let Trump defend himself both in the house and senate. Instead democrats offered no real evidence and just moved on to the vote to impeach him.
Hey guys do you wanna impeach Trump?
Sure! Let’s impeach him. All in favor say Eye.
This is the quickest impeachment in history and possibly the history of the world. But now it’s going to be democrats that don’t call any witnesses in the senate? Remember how ticked off some people got about that? I do. But now it’s okay because who da hell knows?
I completely agree that Trump should not have bothered to send any defense lawyers. He should have simply ignored the whole thing since there was never any chance he'd be convicted.
I disagree that there is any chance whatsoever that there was any lesser charge that would have gotten republicans to convict. They would never convict him for anything, period.
If anyone asked me, I would say the mistake was in tying his responsibility to only that one speech he made on the morning of the riot. Taken out of context of everything else he did over the course of several months to bring it to that point, that one speech can be spun as not enough. But his incitement of that mob was not by any means a one-day event.
Some of his followers are now saying directly that they acted on (what they considered to be) his "call to duty" to them, or his "orders" to do exactly what they did. Wouldn't it be interesting to have some of them appear as witnesses, and ask them to explain why they thought that?
up
5 users have voted.
—
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
@snoopydawg
should be testifying. They would be waiving their right to the fifth Am. once they swore in, gave their name and address, they would have to invoke the 5th, refuse to answer any further questions. That protection against self-incrimination goes to any legal proceeding, and being placed under oath.
That was the only smart thing the Dems have done. They would have been made fools by "I take the Fifth", and no ability to compel any answers.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have some of them appear as witnesses, and ask them to explain why they thought that?
Democrats should have been calling those people as witnesses in the house hearings and let Trump defend himself both in the house and senate. Instead democrats offered no real evidence and just moved on to the vote to impeach him.
Hey guys do you wanna impeach Trump?
Sure! Let’s impeach him. All in favor say Eye.
This is the quickest impeachment in history and possibly the history of the world. But now it’s going to be democrats that don’t call any witnesses in the senate? Remember how ticked off some people got about that? I do. But now it’s okay because who da hell knows?
up
5 users have voted.
—
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
It would be interesting, but not something that could happen in real life for the reasons you say.
My thought was it would be good to get to the truth or at least a more complete picture of how much they were influenced by Trump and how exactly that happened.
But of course, neither legal proceedings nor impeachments are not about that, how silly of me.
I imagine there will be books written eventually that delve into it all in greater detail, for the sake of history (and/or selling books). But alas they will all be biased one way or another, and we'll never really know.
Many people will always absolve him, while others will always regard him as the ultimate untouchable mob boss. There's no truth to be had. Sigh.
I think I'll be going back to watching cooking videos now. I can't take too much more of this depressing shitshow of a government. And there are a lot of really wonderful cooking and food shows out there on the tubes. Good food and drink, good music, good friends. These are things that keep me going.
#1.2.1.1.1.1 should be testifying. They would be waiving their right to the fifth Am. once they swore in, gave their name and address, they would have to invoke the 5th, refuse to answer any further questions. That protection against self-incrimination goes to any legal proceeding, and being placed under oath.
That was the only smart thing the Dems have done. They would have been made fools by "I take the Fifth", and no ability to compel any answers.
@CS in AZ
and it does provide a good drift away from the almost constant shit show that is our government.
I have shown my proper thumbed nose to the neolibs by ignoring the impeachment trial.
I would be very interested in the networks of militias, and hope some type of investigation and legal proceedings can help identify and describe the who, what, when, where, and how these militias work.
They are everywhere, and I am positive some of my clients and even friends and neighbors are part of this network. What do they want and how are they planning to get it? It goes way past Trump. He is just a fucking nut, and an opportunistic one for the ages.
It would be interesting, but not something that could happen in real life for the reasons you say.
My thought was it would be good to get to the truth or at least a more complete picture of how much they were influenced by Trump and how exactly that happened.
But of course, neither legal proceedings nor impeachments are not about that, how silly of me.
I imagine there will be books written eventually that delve into it all in greater detail, for the sake of history (and/or selling books). But alas they will all be biased one way or another, and we'll never really know.
Many people will always absolve him, while others will always regard him as the ultimate untouchable mob boss. There's no truth to be had. Sigh.
I think I'll be going back to watching cooking videos now. I can't take too much more of this depressing shitshow of a government. And there are a lot of really wonderful cooking and food shows out there on the tubes. Good food and drink, good music, good friends. These are things that keep me going.
up
5 users have voted.
—
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@CS in AZ
Civil cases normally have 2 levels: more likely than not; and by a preponderance of evidence.
I would have preferred filing criminal charges on Trump, and skip the whole impeachment dog and pony show.
But impeachment is not criminal trial and I don't think even acknowledging his mental illness(es) would save him from conviction, if there were any serious consideration of holding him accountable.
Here in reality he doesn't actually need a defense of any kind. He could go in front of the senate himself and say "Hell yes, I ordered my personal army of devotees to break in here and threaten you all and maybe kill a few of you, just those who deserve it, you know who you are! It's SAD they didn't get to you!" and his sycophants in the senate would still let him off the hook.
Many people have been going on and on about how awful and pitiful his defense lawyers are ... but what does it matter? The outcome was a foregone conclusion before the "trial" ever started. That's what "justice" means, doncha know.
up
8 users have voted.
—
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
there is no specified standard of proof in an impeachment trial. As GG mentioned, it is a political process, not a criminal one, and it is up to the senators to either convict or not based on nothing but their opinion. They don't have to actually consider any of the evidence that is presented. They could watch youtube cat videos throughout the proceedings and then vote No on conviction just because that's what they already decided to do. Which is is basically what is happening with this so-called trial.
By the way, speaking of cat videos... if anyone has not seen that recent viral video of the Zoom hearing where one of the lawyers 'showed up' with a cat filter on his Zoom settings, which he and his assistant together could not figure out how to remove. It was hilarious!
Lawyer... "... but I'm ready to proceed. I'm here judge. I am not a cat."
Judge: "I can see that."
I laughed and laughed. I assume almost everyone has seen this, but it's worth sharing anyway.
#1.2.1 Civil cases normally have 2 levels: more likely than not; and by a preponderance of evidence.
I would have preferred filing criminal charges on Trump, and skip the whole impeachment dog and pony show.
there is no specified standard of proof in an impeachment trial. As GG mentioned, it is a political process, not a criminal one, and it is up to the senators to either convict or not based on nothing but their opinion. They don't have to actually consider any of the evidence that is presented. They could watch youtube cat videos throughout the proceedings and then vote No on conviction just because that's what they already decided to do. Which is is basically what is happening with this so-called trial.
By the way, speaking of cat videos... if anyone has not seen that recent viral video of the Zoom hearing where one of the lawyers 'showed up' with a cat filter on his Zoom settings, which he and his assistant together could not figure out how to remove. It was hilarious!
Lawyer... "... but I'm ready to proceed. I'm here judge. I am not a cat."
Judge: "I can see that."
I laughed and laughed. I assume almost everyone has seen this, but it's worth sharing anyway.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
there is no specified standard of proof in an impeachment trial. As GG mentioned, it is a political process, not a criminal one, and it is up to the senators to either convict or not based on nothing but their opinion. They don't have to actually consider any of the evidence that is presented. They could watch youtube cat videos throughout the proceedings and then vote No on conviction just because that's what they already decided to do. Which is is basically what is happening with this so-called trial.
By the way, speaking of cat videos... if anyone has not seen that recent viral video of the Zoom hearing where one of the lawyers 'showed up' with a cat filter on his Zoom settings, which he and his assistant together could not figure out how to remove. It was hilarious!
Lawyer... "... but I'm ready to proceed. I'm here judge. I am not a cat."
Judge: "I can see that."
I laughed and laughed. I assume almost everyone has seen this, but it's worth sharing anyway.
@on the cusp
I know this is one opinion of one person who served on a major trial jury.
One is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, the jury verdict is a choice between guilty/not guilty, which is a verdict on doubt, has nothing to do with determining innocence.
up
5 users have voted.
—
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
First, I am not a lawyer. However I did serve two months of my life on a sequestered (24/7) jury involving four defendants and multiple charges including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, drug running, and RICO.
An impeachment trial may not have the same requirements for finding guilt as those our jury had in our trial since impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. However, the standard that I and my fellow jurors applied in our trial was very simple. Did the prosecution PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants committed the crime(s) for which they were charged? Not guilty is the default, if the prosecution fails to prove its case, regardless of what you may believe.
In the case of our trial, we came back with multiple verdicts on the charges, some of which were guilty and some of which were not guilty. Three of the defendants were convicted of some of the charges while the fourth defendant was declared not guilty.
The bottom line is that the test for a juror is not how you feel about the defendants. God knows all of us hated one of the defendants whom we believed to be the hit man, but the prosecution never proved he was even in the state at the time of the murder.
As for Trump, I believe he is guilty of a lot of crimes, just as many of recent Presidents are. But this impeachment trial is a farce, just as was the previous one. It is a diversion away from the real issues that Congress should be addressing, first and foremost of which is providing real economic and health care help to the American people.
up
20 users have voted.
—
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
First, I am not a lawyer. However I did serve two months of my life on a sequestered (24/7) jury involving four defendants and multiple charges including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, drug running, and RICO.
An impeachment trial may not have the same requirements for finding guilt as those our jury had in our trial since impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. However, the standard that I and my fellow jurors applied in our trial was very simple. Did the prosecution PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants committed the crime(s) for which they were charged? Not guilty is the default, if the prosecution fails to prove its case, regardless of what you may believe.
In the case of our trial, we came back with multiple verdicts on the charges, some of which were guilty and some of which were not guilty. Three of the defendants were convicted of some of the charges while the fourth defendant was declared not guilty.
The bottom line is that the test for a juror is not how you feel about the defendants. God knows all of us hated one of the defendants whom we believed to be the hit man, but the prosecution never proved he was even in the state at the time of the murder.
As for Trump, I believe he is guilty of a lot of crimes, just as many of recent Presidents are. But this impeachment trial is a farce, just as was the previous one. It is a diversion away from the real issues that Congress should be addressing, first and foremost of which is providing real economic and health care help to the American people.
up
8 users have voted.
—
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
@gulfgal98
What is really going on in a criminal trial is the government and their work product is what is really the heart of the trial. The jury judges THEM, not the defendant.
First, I am not a lawyer. However I did serve two months of my life on a sequestered (24/7) jury involving four defendants and multiple charges including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, drug running, and RICO.
An impeachment trial may not have the same requirements for finding guilt as those our jury had in our trial since impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. However, the standard that I and my fellow jurors applied in our trial was very simple. Did the prosecution PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants committed the crime(s) for which they were charged? Not guilty is the default, if the prosecution fails to prove its case, regardless of what you may believe.
In the case of our trial, we came back with multiple verdicts on the charges, some of which were guilty and some of which were not guilty. Three of the defendants were convicted of some of the charges while the fourth defendant was declared not guilty.
The bottom line is that the test for a juror is not how you feel about the defendants. God knows all of us hated one of the defendants whom we believed to be the hit man, but the prosecution never proved he was even in the state at the time of the murder.
As for Trump, I believe he is guilty of a lot of crimes, just as many of recent Presidents are. But this impeachment trial is a farce, just as was the previous one. It is a diversion away from the real issues that Congress should be addressing, first and foremost of which is providing real economic and health care help to the American people.
up
8 users have voted.
—
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
First, I am not a lawyer. However I did serve two months of my life on a sequestered (24/7) jury involving four defendants and multiple charges including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, drug running, and RICO.
An impeachment trial may not have the same requirements for finding guilt as those our jury had in our trial since impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. However, the standard that I and my fellow jurors applied in our trial was very simple. Did the prosecution PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants committed the crime(s) for which they were charged? Not guilty is the default, if the prosecution fails to prove its case, regardless of what you may believe.
In the case of our trial, we came back with multiple verdicts on the charges, some of which were guilty and some of which were not guilty. Three of the defendants were convicted of some of the charges while the fourth defendant was declared not guilty.
The bottom line is that the test for a juror is not how you feel about the defendants. God knows all of us hated one of the defendants whom we believed to be the hit man, but the prosecution never proved he was even in the state at the time of the murder.
As for Trump, I believe he is guilty of a lot of crimes, just as many of recent Presidents are. But this impeachment trial is a farce, just as was the previous one. It is a diversion away from the real issues that Congress should be addressing, first and foremost of which is providing real economic and health care help to the American people.
up
2 users have voted.
—
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
I get why Joe Rogan went to soundcloud, he's lookin' illin' on my screen now, and the way he screeches at the end of every clip is creepy but hey thanks for all the fish man. cheers
...
Bernie joined the club in 1991. And oh yeah, wasn't it Bernie who responded "Look out your window." when asked on Meet the Press how his Presidential campaign would get laws passed through Congress if he were to become the elected one? He was going to call for mass demonstrations outside the White House (called it public housing! LOL), and outside the Capitol wasn't he? C'mon man! TRUTH Bernie did rallies, Bernie knows mobs, Bernie knows power. In hindsight I realize that is why he kept calling Trump "the most dangerous man in America" these last couple of years, or whatever the term was I don't recall exactly. Just say Goebbels.
It's time they cease the pomp, Congress is also like an ancient history play being acted out over and over, by actors so old they would never be there except for the piles of donor cash and awards. 19 Black Paintings
as seen off HWY 101 near Geyserville one day
in wine cave country
aloha
Peace and Love
--- Zoom Justice Postscript. The shitty software is still Windows, by Bill Gates. heh
Edited enough: to fix the following beeb linky, which broke the spellings, which are now fixed. Viral 'Im not a cat' filter is decades-old software
This makes more sense to me, I was wondering how that would have gotten set by a clueless user.
The answer turns out to be that old dell machines shipped some shitty avatar software (along with lots of other stuff) that defaulted to on. The lawyer is probably using an ancient dell computer with this software and hasn't used video chat on it before this.
This is extra hostile, because it's separate from whatever video chat application they were using - so it would have been harder to know about and turn off.
As an aside, Microsoft fought in court to force OEMs to not install this crap alongside Windows (reasonably since it was damaging their brand and making the machines less secure), but they lost. Another reason why the macOS model is better for users. OS companies should make their own hardware.
LMAO! 285 comments yesterday, mostly debating what a "filter" is. Haha! A filter is also a program Her did not put on Her basement email server which was called Exchange, by Bill Gates. LOL it's a comedy show! Help! It's a tragedy! I am not kidding. "Justice" in a free society my utopia does not include sekret software doled out by billionaire sekret software rent seekers. Free Assange
I get why Joe Rogan went to soundcloud, he's lookin' illin' on my screen now, and the way he screeches at the end of every clip is creepy but hey thanks for all the fish man. cheers
...
Bernie joined the club in 1991. And oh yeah, wasn't it Bernie who responded "Look out your window." when asked on Meet the Press how his Presidential campaign would get laws passed through Congress if he were to become the elected one? He was going to call for mass demonstrations outside the White House (called it public housing! LOL), and outside the Capitol wasn't he? C'mon man! TRUTH Bernie did rallies, Bernie knows mobs, Bernie knows power. In hindsight I realize that is why he kept calling Trump "the most dangerous man in America" these last couple of years, or whatever the term was I don't recall exactly. Just say Goebbels.
It's time they cease the pomp, Congress is also like an ancient history play being acted out over and over, by actors so old they would never be there except for the piles of donor cash and awards. 19 Black Paintings
as seen off HWY 101 near Geyserville one day
in wine cave country
aloha
Peace and Love
--- Zoom Justice Postscript. The shitty software is still Windows, by Bill Gates. heh
Edited enough: to fix the following beeb linky, which broke the spellings, which are now fixed. Viral 'Im not a cat' filter is decades-old software
This makes more sense to me, I was wondering how that would have gotten set by a clueless user.
The answer turns out to be that old dell machines shipped some shitty avatar software (along with lots of other stuff) that defaulted to on. The lawyer is probably using an ancient dell computer with this software and hasn't used video chat on it before this.
This is extra hostile, because it's separate from whatever video chat application they were using - so it would have been harder to know about and turn off.
As an aside, Microsoft fought in court to force OEMs to not install this crap alongside Windows (reasonably since it was damaging their brand and making the machines less secure), but they lost. Another reason why the macOS model is better for users. OS companies should make their own hardware.
LMAO! 285 comments yesterday, mostly debating what a "filter" is. Haha! A filter is also a program Her did not put on Her basement email server which was called Exchange, by Bill Gates. LOL it's a comedy show! Help! It's a tragedy! I am not kidding. "Justice" in a free society my utopia does not include sekret software doled out by billionaire sekret software rent seekers. Free Assange
Comments
Oh, the conundrums
One is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, the jury verdict is a choice between guilty/not guilty, which is a verdict on doubt, has nothing to do with determining innocence.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Always?
Can’t some people be found innocent when their lawyer proves that there was no way he could have done the deed?
I think if republicans let Trump off the hook then someone should charge him criminally for his actions leading up to the event and especially during it when he was watching it unfold live and still waited to call them off. If what they did was criminal then Trump should have to answer for it. Did he wind them up and then release them to do mayhem? If no one is above the law then let’s prove it.
Of course every president is above the law, but let’s imagine what if they weren’t? Ha. Maybe we could have peace. Finally. What is the number of years that we haven’t been at war? Seven?
I have no idea how Lynn Wood has not been charged for threatening Pence unless what he is supposed to have said was misconstrued, but he was basically calling for his death. And how much of the violent talk was just that? Talking tuff because of mob mentality? It’s best that I’m not on any juries.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
Depends ... hard to tell ... it's all about the counting
the numbers go from none to 134. wars
https://www.euronews.com/live
Prosecutors put on evidence of guilt.
All a defense lawyer has to do is pick their evidence apart. They do not have to call their client to the stand, or put on any witnesses, or present any evidence. All the burden is on the government.
All defendants have a right to remain silent. Getting on the stand waives that right.
It is never about innocence, and that is actually drilled into juries' brains at voir dire, and final summation. It is about the government. Did they have enough evidence or not. Government is held to a high, very high, standard.
I do not even ask my clients if they did what they are accused of doing. All I ask is what evidence to they think might be discovered, or has been discovered, that incriminates them.
I have not been keeping up with details of the trial, but have watched a couple of horrific videos of the crowd at the rally, and it appears they had a plan, and a leader.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Well, if we were to travel the Intellectually Honest Highway
....then we would have to account for the violent political talk broadcast by the AM radio monopolies that saturate every nook and cranny of America, from coast to coast. This is a hot, angry, right wing rash that has blanketed the nation for 30 years, with some ugly oozing during both the Obama and Trump years. During that time, the perversely deregulated monopolies have pumped out shameful misinformation, and 24/7 political and partisan hate-talk, on the the publicly-owned AM radio bandwidth. And the Left was silenced and denied access, altogether.
They were deregulated from the Fairness Doctrine, allowed Republicans to monopolize the nation's AM radio bandwidth and block the voice of the Left from communicating to Americans on these public-owned airways. This is the very broadcast spectrum that has pumped out misinformation and propaganda for 30 years, which explains why the voter preference map of this largely-rural nation is now solid red. (The only way to control disinformation while maintaining free speech is by employing a regulator, like the Fairness Doctrine. Providing equal time to correct false facts and misinformation corrects itself without authority interventions. No one is censored and everyone is engaged and empowered.)
Every day, the alt.right vilifies some centrist Democrat, calling them a "FAR Left extremist" — whom they virtually hang from a lamp post and cut off their nuts — even Nancy's. I studied hate talk radio for many years and learned a lot about violence and weapons. And paranoid agendas. Their groups have been well organized for many years. They are the kind of folks who look outside every morning, fully expecting that, one day soon, they'll see violent Civil War action making its way up the street. They're ready for it, too.
The point is, whether or not Trump would even knows the words to use in order to unleash a fast moving violent mob. I would wager that Trump has never communicated with any of them and there was certainly no collusion. I imagine some of the rioters rehearse mob violence at their militia meet-ups — they are no doubt versed in the most effective tactical formations for any situation. They definitely know just what kind of tools and objects to carry to penetrate and occupy enemy headquarters. During the week, these "patriots" are on their message boards threatening fantasy traitors (and political operatives); seditionists who are trying to over throw their government. They share a universal belief that, one day soon, swat teams are going to come for their guns, or a group of co-conspiring traitors will rig the votes and steal their elections.
These white supremacist groups have their own goals and agendas. They came to DC, armed, to see if Trump would succeed in blocking the theft of the 2020 election. Would America succumb to tyranny? This mindset is 100 percent Real to them. Who knows what Trump was thinking. He's an agent of chaos.
However, I did not hear Trump give the crowd any tactical advice. And Trump didn't say a word about breaking into the Capitol to terrorize Congress. I did not hear Trump say anything about rushing the Capitol police — but I am pretty sure that some members of the Capitol police were helping the protestors. Now, that is what Congress should be freaking out about. US politics are so dysfunctional that their own private guards could betray them at any time and hand them over to the angry mob. I also didn't hear Trump signal the Capitol police to help the protestors enter the Capitol. Unless he was speaking Q anon.
It was the Democrats first Impeachment trial — and NOT Communist China — that wasted the critical early days of the Pandemic and sent the US stumbling into a medical catastrophe. That ridiculous spectacle occupied the nation until February 9, 2020. Watching it, I saw non-stop hysteria and delusional outbursts from Democrats who were overwhelmed by Trump Derangement Syndrome. They behaved like victims of late-stage political syphillis. Meanwhile, witnesses — who witnessed nothing at all relevant — were testifying about their personal credentials and rumors they had heard — which they tried to pass off as 'evidence" of a crime that was in no way compelling to anyone watching.
An intellectually honest person would probably see those very same psychotic obsessions driving the second Impeachment.
In the Impeachment Redux, the Democrats will provide evidence of what Trump might have wanted to say, evidence of what Trump's intentions actually were, evidence of what Trump thought was going to happen, and evidence of what the mob thought they heard.
An intellectually honest person might have some doubt.
The Democrats betrayed the American People before, and they are doing it again right now. They screwed their own party by filling it with dogmatic Dinos, right-wing opportunists, and political grifters. And as weak and diminished as the Republican Party is right now, the Democrats are convinced they won't win the next election if a Republican populist, like Trump, is the candidate. I think they know in their hearts that Left isn't coming back, and neither are the Blacks. "Who are they going to vote for?" Not you. Their Neoliberal greed and their moronic deregulations set all of us on the path to failure.
The Democratic Party is the corporate, war-mongering Party, now — owned by their Big Donors and symbolizing greed and corruption. Let's all be the authors of their permanent legacy.
Are they aware their good cop/bad cop duopoly scam — where they deliver two defective candidates or platforms — both of which ignore the will of the People — won't work anymore? Do they know that calling this fakery a democracy has systematically destroyed democracy in the US, and their bad example is crashing democracies around the world? With each passing year, there are fewer of them.
Maybe that's a good thing.
He did not tell them to do that
Nope. He did say that he wanted them to cheer on the good senators. And yeah his parting shot of keeping it peaceful can’t be misinterpreted. But people are trying to.
The worst thing this whole debacle showed is how corruptly stupid this country is. Limbaugh gets the presidential medal of freedom after spending 30 plus years teaching people to hate while Assange is in prison.
As I said in the EBs democrats have held all branches of government more than once starting with Clinton and then Obama now and Biden and every time we’ve asked for single payer but told that now is not the time. Okay so when will be the time? After Manchin has retired? There will always be a McConnell or a Manchin democrat to stand in the way of decent legislation. And during every one of their tenures they passed legislation that made our lives worse. How can centrists not see that?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
" if we were to travel the Intellectually Honest Highway"
have to respond, very old friend. "we sure the fuck would not be here."
Lol Smiley. You made me laugh.
And then, another thought. I wish there was such a highway and I wish we were traveling it right now, with the top down.
a movable feast, :)
Extremely well put.
I really can't disagree with a word of this.
Personally, I don't give a tinker's damn about Impeachment 2: This Time We Really Mean It. It doesn't change my day, the country, our precious "democracy" or anything else in anyway, shape or form. They could impeach Trump 20 times and it won't stop the decay. This is just more bread and circuses to let the government (both parties) avoid doing anything about COVID, the 99%, etc. etc.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
@on the cusp After the last 3 days
After the last 3 days watching the presentation of prosecution's case, I have no doubts what so ever.
To me, there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, clearly with cause and effect at play between what he said and how his supporters acted, and this wasn't just a one off event, but a months long campaign to stay in power irregardless of what the election outcome would be. There was clear motive and intent.
The defense's arguments so far, to me, are like a screen door held wide open trying to keep the cold out.
As Thomas Paine once said, “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”
Trump is a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding Everything he doesn't like, in contempt!
And he still hasn't conceded the election. Clearly he is in a severe mental crisis and needs serious, professional counseling.
Plus a few decades in jail might mellow him out a bit. (snark)
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
If it were a criminal trial, insanity would be his best defense
But impeachment is not criminal trial and I don't think even acknowledging his mental illness(es) would save him from conviction, if there were any serious consideration of holding him accountable.
Here in reality he doesn't actually need a defense of any kind. He could go in front of the senate himself and say "Hell yes, I ordered my personal army of devotees to break in here and threaten you all and maybe kill a few of you, just those who deserve it, you know who you are! It's SAD they didn't get to you!" and his sycophants in the senate would still let him off the hook.
Many people have been going on and on about how awful and pitiful his defense lawyers are ... but what does it matter? The outcome was a foregone conclusion before the "trial" ever started. That's what "justice" means, doncha know.
Turley thought Trumps best choice would be to not
even show up and let that be his defense. Because seriously who ever gave it a 1 second thought that republicans would convict him? Plus it looks like democrats are over charging Trump and not giving republicans a choice of convicting him on a lesser charge. Like felony rioting? I think that is going to be what his supporters are being charged with and it comes with a 10 year sentence curtesy of Trump’s own executive order. lol...seriously. Could republicans go for the lesser charge? Possibly. But they should get the chance to. IMO. On the cusp? Am I all wet?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
I agree with part of that
I completely agree that Trump should not have bothered to send any defense lawyers. He should have simply ignored the whole thing since there was never any chance he'd be convicted.
I disagree that there is any chance whatsoever that there was any lesser charge that would have gotten republicans to convict. They would never convict him for anything, period.
If anyone asked me, I would say the mistake was in tying his responsibility to only that one speech he made on the morning of the riot. Taken out of context of everything else he did over the course of several months to bring it to that point, that one speech can be spun as not enough. But his incitement of that mob was not by any means a one-day event.
Some of his followers are now saying directly that they acted on (what they considered to be) his "call to duty" to them, or his "orders" to do exactly what they did. Wouldn't it be interesting to have some of them appear as witnesses, and ask them to explain why they thought that?
It’s a no brainer
Democrats should have been calling those people as witnesses in the house hearings and let Trump defend himself both in the house and senate. Instead democrats offered no real evidence and just moved on to the vote to impeach him.
This is the quickest impeachment in history and possibly the history of the world. But now it’s going to be democrats that don’t call any witnesses in the senate? Remember how ticked off some people got about that? I do. But now it’s okay because who da hell knows?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
Nobody under investigation of committing a crime
should be testifying. They would be waiving their right to the fifth Am. once they swore in, gave their name and address, they would have to invoke the 5th, refuse to answer any further questions. That protection against self-incrimination goes to any legal proceeding, and being placed under oath.
That was the only smart thing the Dems have done. They would have been made fools by "I take the Fifth", and no ability to compel any answers.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Yes, that's true and a good point OTC
It would be interesting, but not something that could happen in real life for the reasons you say.
My thought was it would be good to get to the truth or at least a more complete picture of how much they were influenced by Trump and how exactly that happened.
But of course, neither legal proceedings nor impeachments are not about that, how silly of me.
I imagine there will be books written eventually that delve into it all in greater detail, for the sake of history (and/or selling books). But alas they will all be biased one way or another, and we'll never really know.
Many people will always absolve him, while others will always regard him as the ultimate untouchable mob boss. There's no truth to be had. Sigh.
I think I'll be going back to watching cooking videos now. I can't take too much more of this depressing shitshow of a government. And there are a lot of really wonderful cooking and food shows out there on the tubes. Good food and drink, good music, good friends. These are things that keep me going.
There is nothing at all wrong in watching cooking videos,
and it does provide a good drift away from the almost constant shit show that is our government.
I have shown my proper thumbed nose to the neolibs by ignoring the impeachment trial.
I would be very interested in the networks of militias, and hope some type of investigation and legal proceedings can help identify and describe the who, what, when, where, and how these militias work.
They are everywhere, and I am positive some of my clients and even friends and neighbors are part of this network. What do they want and how are they planning to get it? It goes way past Trump. He is just a fucking nut, and an opportunistic one for the ages.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I am not sure what the burden of proof is in this trial.
Civil cases normally have 2 levels: more likely than not; and by a preponderance of evidence.
I would have preferred filing criminal charges on Trump, and skip the whole impeachment dog and pony show.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Well, IANAL, but as far as I can discover
there is no specified standard of proof in an impeachment trial. As GG mentioned, it is a political process, not a criminal one, and it is up to the senators to either convict or not based on nothing but their opinion. They don't have to actually consider any of the evidence that is presented. They could watch youtube cat videos throughout the proceedings and then vote No on conviction just because that's what they already decided to do. Which is is basically what is happening with this so-called trial.
By the way, speaking of cat videos... if anyone has not seen that recent viral video of the Zoom hearing where one of the lawyers 'showed up' with a cat filter on his Zoom settings, which he and his assistant together could not figure out how to remove. It was hilarious!
Lawyer... "... but I'm ready to proceed. I'm here judge. I am not a cat."
Judge: "I can see that."
I laughed and laughed. I assume almost everyone has seen this, but it's worth sharing anyway.
[video:https://youtu.be/lGOofzZOyl8]
It’s funnier with the sound off
You’ll see.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
My legal assistant showed it to me as soon as I walked into the
office. Hilarious.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
OTC, see my comment below
I know this is one opinion of one person who served on a major trial jury.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Gotta weigh in one this
First, I am not a lawyer. However I did serve two months of my life on a sequestered (24/7) jury involving four defendants and multiple charges including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, drug running, and RICO.
An impeachment trial may not have the same requirements for finding guilt as those our jury had in our trial since impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. However, the standard that I and my fellow jurors applied in our trial was very simple. Did the prosecution PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants committed the crime(s) for which they were charged? Not guilty is the default, if the prosecution fails to prove its case, regardless of what you may believe.
In the case of our trial, we came back with multiple verdicts on the charges, some of which were guilty and some of which were not guilty. Three of the defendants were convicted of some of the charges while the fourth defendant was declared not guilty.
The bottom line is that the test for a juror is not how you feel about the defendants. God knows all of us hated one of the defendants whom we believed to be the hit man, but the prosecution never proved he was even in the state at the time of the murder.
As for Trump, I believe he is guilty of a lot of crimes, just as many of recent Presidents are. But this impeachment trial is a farce, just as was the previous one. It is a diversion away from the real issues that Congress should be addressing, first and foremost of which is providing real economic and health care help to the American people.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Up-voted X 1000!
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
exactly
What is really going on in a criminal trial is the government and their work product is what is really the heart of the trial. The jury judges THEM, not the defendant.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Well said! And I totally agree!
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Isn’t that what friends are for,
to be there for each other with honesty and innocence of spirit?
Thank you phillybluesfan.
Tulsi Gabbard on How Congress is Like High School
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROd2JuDM8lc width:420]
1,173,590 views •Jan 21, 2021
I get why Joe Rogan went to soundcloud, he's lookin' illin' on my screen now, and the way he screeches at the end of every clip is creepy but hey thanks for all the fish man. cheers
...
Bernie joined the club in 1991. And oh yeah, wasn't it Bernie who responded "Look out your window." when asked on Meet the Press how his Presidential campaign would get laws passed through Congress if he were to become the elected one? He was going to call for mass demonstrations outside the White House (called it public housing! LOL), and outside the Capitol wasn't he? C'mon man! TRUTH Bernie did rallies, Bernie knows mobs, Bernie knows power. In hindsight I realize that is why he kept calling Trump "the most dangerous man in America" these last couple of years, or whatever the term was I don't recall exactly. Just say Goebbels.
It's time they cease the pomp, Congress is also like an ancient history play being acted out over and over, by actors so old they would never be there except for the piles of donor cash and awards. 19 Black Paintings
as seen off HWY 101 near Geyserville one day
in wine cave country
aloha
Peace and Love
--- Zoom Justice Postscript. The shitty software is still Windows, by Bill Gates. heh
Edited enough: to fix the following beeb linky, which broke the spellings, which are now fixed.
Viral 'Im not a cat' filter is decades-old software
...
HackerNews:
LMAO! 285 comments yesterday, mostly debating what a "filter" is. Haha! A filter is also a program Her did not put on Her basement email server which was called Exchange, by Bill Gates. LOL it's a comedy show! Help! It's a tragedy! I am not kidding. "Justice" in
a free societymy utopia does not include sekret software doled out by billionaire sekret software rent seekers. Free Assangegood luck
Tulsi overestimates Congress
It's more like junior high school, and sometimes even more like kindergarten.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.