We're getting closer. 

Any day now.

Indeed. 

To what?  Another failure?  

Another failure?

Other than this failure?

Past history as a guide, I'm expecting them to screw this up.

They simply have no credible evidence Trump committed a crime

Ridiculous. 

Stop projecting

They simply have no credible evidence Trump committed a crime

If they did have completely conclusive proof of him committing a crime, which I also doubt, I would still not trust them to handle it competently.

They simply have no credible evidence Trump committed a crime

Expecting?  They've already screwed it up.  It's just another partisan shit show.

They've already screwed it up.  It's just another partisan shit show.

Well....  

*sigh*

Yes.  That's also true.

And the resistance inquisition plays on .......

"Although a criminal referral is often looked at as symbolic because it carries no legal weight..."

Three important words to remember, arrest, trial, conviction. Have not seen any of those yet.

Details, details Doc ..... the triggered rarely deal in details ...

Have not seen any of those yet.

Should we?    Or do you hold that no charges should be filed against Trump?

If Garland presses criminal charges based off the one sided evidence the partisan shit show Jan 6th committee presented; instead of demanding all of the evidence involved they acquired (including evidence that doesn't further their TDS driven narrative). He is a complete and utter moron; and will be deserving of impeachment that should be headed his way (make that multiple impeachments).

They have presented no evidence that Trump had anything to do with the plotting of Jan 6th. They have fully jumped the rails. The main purpose of the Jan 6th committee was to look at the breakdown of communication between the intelligence community and those that were responsible for DC security; namely Pelosi, Schumer; and Bowser. To make sure this never happens again. But since Pelosi declared that they were off limits for questioning- the committee instead turned it's attention to Pelosi's purpose- get Trump at all costs. Which meant investigating Trump's election claims. 

I can't stand Trump; but he is deserving of the same protections under the law as everyone else. Democrats and their partisan arms the FBI and DOJ have destroyed that. We have a two tier justice system that any tin horn dictator would be proud of.

If sufficiently reliable and incontrovertible evidence is prevented, then certainly he should be charged, but just being charged does not equal a conviction.

If sufficiently reliable and incontrovertible evidence is prevented, then certainly he should be charged, but just being charged does not equal a conviction.

The charge precedes the trial so the evidence to go to trial will not be as formal nor as complete as that presented in a trial.   

Will you cry foul if Trump is charged with inciting supporters with known lies about a rigged election and failure to quell the violence for three hours given the current known evidence?

I can't stand Trump; but he is deserving of the same protections under the law as everyone else.

Strawman.   There is no argument that Trump be unfairly or unjustly treated.     More the opposite:  that he NOT be treated as if above the law.

They have presented no evidence that Trump had anything to do with the plotting of Jan 6th.

I doubt that he will be charged with plotting an armed insurrection.   Trump incited the insurrectionists and refused to act for three hours to quell their violence.   He might be charged for that.   

Again, if charged with sufficiently reliable and incontrovertible evidence, he should be charged and I see no reason to cry foul on my part.

Do you believe it likely that Trump, Roger Stone, some of the White House staff and some members of Congress conspired with The Proud Boys and The Oath Keepers to mount Trump's January 6th Insurrection at the US Capital? If so, should they all be prosecuted?

Rhodes, leader of The Oath Keepers, was convicted of Seditious Conspiracy. It takes more than just one to mount a conspiracy!

Again, if charged with sufficiently reliable and incontrovertible evidence

You would not normally see that level of evidence until there is a trial.   I was asking about the charge (before the trial):

"Will you cry foul if Trump is charged with inciting supporters with known lies about a rigged election and failure to quell the violence for three hours given the current known evidence?"

Your answer is circular in that it presupposes a level and quality of evidence that does not normally exist prior to a trial.   Indeed, incontrovertible evidence  usually is determined by a trial.

But we have very reliable, high quality evidence that Trump incited his supporters with flat out lies about a rigged election (this is arguably even incontrovertible given we can observe him doing this in his speeches and tweets), that he knew his "rigged election" lies were complete bullshit, that he knew his supporters engaged in an armed insurrection where they broke and entered the Capitol building with the intent of disrupting the proceedings (and, arguably, to do violence to Pence), that he did NOTHING to stop this for three hours (ignoring the pleas of family, advisors and 'friends') and, worse, tweeted that Pence let them down right in the middle of the insurrection.

We also know that Trump attempted to coerce Raffensperger to find votes for him ... we can all read the publicly available transcript.    We also have very strong testimony under oath by Republican AZ Speaker Bowers that Trump asked him to submit alternate electors favorable to him.   In addition, we have very strong testimony under oath by high-ranking, connected Republicans that Trump attempted to suborn Pence to engage in an unconstitutional act of tabling certified votes in a ridiculous attempt to win by plurality.

Now, assuming any of that can translate into a criminal charge, do you hold that we do not currently have sufficient evidence to warrant the charge?   That is, would you cry foul if Trump were charged?

Do you believe it likely that Trump, Roger Stone, some of the White House staff and some members of Congress conspired with The Proud Boys and The Oath Keepers to mount Trump's January 6th Insurrection at the US Capital? If so, should they all be prosecuted?

Now this is an example of a charge where I would agree with Ed that the evidence thus far is insufficient to render a criminal charge.

Possible?   Certainly.

Likely?  I could see them doing this.

Chargeable?   Nope, not at this point.

I believe the January 6th Committee provided enough evidence.

nytimes

Nothing circular at all about my response. I gave you the best answer I could but it appears that you want a answer that is worded exactly what you want to hear only.

I'm not sure what the exact law is, but Trump will be charged with obstructing Congress by attempting to disrupt and forestall the counting of the electors. This obstruction was intended to foster his conspiracy to manipulate the electoral count through illegal means.  (Committee members have already suggested this)

I dont think the charges will have anything to do with the riot at the Capitol per se. 

It is circular because you are putting forth a condition (incontrovertible evidence) for charging Trump that cannot realistically be achieved without a trial.

It is next to impossible to provide incontrovertible evidence before a trial since the argument of dispute against the evidence would come from the trial.

It is not your word choice, it is the logic.

I wonder who will cry foul if Trump is charged with obstructing Congress by (at least) his attempt to suborn Pence to unconstitutionally table certified results?

I dont think the charges will have anything to do with the riot at the Capitol per se. 

Odd given the insurrection and Trump's participation in inciting his supporters coupled with his three hour refusal to act against them directly disrupted Congress.

"Trump incited the insurrectionists and refused to act for three hours to quell their violence.   He might be charged for that"

No evidence he incited anything.

"But we have very reliable, high quality evidence that Trump incited his supporters".

No such evidence exists.

I am confident you will never recognize evidence for any wrongdoing by Trump.

But let's see just how ridiculous you are willing to be:

Is there evidence that Trump lied about actually winning the election and that the results we see are the false results of a rigged election?

Is there evidence that Trump lied to his supporters to convince them that their votes were disenfranchised and that they must fight against this?

If you had watched the public hearings of the January 6th Committee you would know there is lots of evidence Trump, some of his staffers and gop members of Congress conspired to organize Trump's January 6th Insurrection and to mount the fake Trump electors scheme!

IMO, anyone who claims no such evidence exists is either blinded by partisanship or is simply making ridiculous statements for fun.   (How that would be fun is beyond me.)

Strawman.   There is no argument that Trump be unfairly or unjustly treated.     More the opposite:  that he NOT be treated as if above the law.

Only in TDS land. Democrats have been trying to get Trump since he road down the escalator to announce his candidacy. The entire illegal FBI spying on an opposition party based on a Hillary Clinton campaign paid for political smear job. The Russian collusion hoax. The entire bullshit impeachment over a phone call pieced together by someone that wasn't even present when it was made. The second star witness of that one was the Ambassador to Ukraine- who hated Trump; and didn't hide the fact. Then was appalled when Trump pulled her from the job. Seems that only Democrats can fire federal DA's and Ambassadors whenever they feel like it. The whole "serving at will of the President" doesn't apply when Republicans are in charge.

I doubt that he will be charged with plotting an armed insurrection. 

That is because he didn't.

 Trump incited the insurrectionists and refused to act for three hours to quell their violence.

Again, only in TDS land. And if you completely ignore who is in charge of DC security. There were warnings before the Jan 6th riot- they were ignored. Why don't you ask Pelosi, Schumer, and Bowser what they were doing for those three hours? We know Nancy was hiding with a camera crew talking tough about assaulting a sitting President. Who the hell knows where Schumer was- at least he has the brains to keep his mouth shut and pretend the job wasn't his. As for Bowser; well she already has her scape goat in the head of DC security who resigned on Jan 7th. The one person that actually had the brains to request the National Guard be on stand by. DC security also requested military help half a dozen times during the first hour of Jan 6th. So why wasn't it granted by Pelosi, Schumer, or Bowser?

usatoday

Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said he requested that the National Guard be placed on standby in the days before the   deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol , but House and Senate security officials turned him down.

Sund, who   resigned his post the day after the riot , told The Washington Post he had been concerned that the protest planned for Jan. 6 would be larger than expected. Sund said   he asked House and Senate security officials   for permission to request that the National Guard be placed on standby.

Sund said House and Senate sergeants at arms told him they were not comfortable with the “optics” of declaring an emergency days before the protest and suggested Sund should informally ask   Guard officials to be on alert . Both have since resigned.

Sund said he pleaded for help five more times as the riot unfolded. A crowd of several thousand quickly overran the Capitol Police contingent of 1,400 officers at the scene.

“If we would have had the National Guard, we could have held them at bay longer, until more officers from our partner agencies could arrive,”   Sund told the Post .

npr

Acting U.S. Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman, testifying remotely through a video link, told a House committee that her agency head had requested military backup about a half-dozen times in the first hour after the Capitol complex was breached on Jan. 6, the day of the insurrection.

Pittman based her assessment on phone records her agency obtained for then-Chief Steven Sund showing he reached out to the Capitol's top security officials starting shortly before 1 p.m. in the first of six calls requesting the National Guard to respond.

"Chief Sund spoke to both sergeants-at-arms to request National Guard support," Pittman told a House panel on Thursday in her first testimony in a public congressional hearing on the siege.

Pittman's and Sund's accounts now directly contradict one by the top House security chief at the time, Paul Irving, who told a Senate panel this week that he didn't get an early call for military aid.

As for incitement. Better go after Democrats who have incited their moronic followers if you are going to hang that on Trump. Of course that would take an AG that wasn't a complete partisan POS.

Only in TDS land. Democrats have been trying to get Trump since he road down the escalator to announce his candidacy. 

There is no argument that Trump be treated unfairly.   Your typical ranting will not change that fact.   Trump, if anything, has been treated as if above the law.   If most anyone else had held TS/SCI documents in their home they would be in jail.   If most anyone else had failed to fully cooperate as Trump has, they would be in jail.

That is because he didn't.

Yes it is highly unlikely that Trump planned an armed insurrection.   It is likely, however, that Trump planned a non-violent march on the Capital to disrupt proceedings .   It is also near certainty that Trump, knowing that his non-violent march turned into an armed insurrection, did NOTHING for three hours while ignoring the pleas of his advisors, family and 'friends'.    And that Trump suborned Pence to commit an unconstitutional act in the proceedings by tabling certified votes in select states so that he could win by a plurality.

And if you completely ignore who is in charge of DC security.

Again you replay the clueless allegation that Pelosi was in charge of DC security.    Her role is administrative:  budgets, staffing, etc.   The chief is the operational head of security.    apnews

This is well known but you keep replaying falsehoods.   Find an honest argument.

Better go after Democrats who have incited their moronic follower ...

What nonsense.   There was no D insurrection.   Focus.