New Trump Quote For Dems To Use In Presidential Campaign - Trumps Says He Will Be A Dictator On Day One
Trump always wants to have his cake and eat it too. (and eat everybody else's cake too.) He has a vast history of saying something stupid or incredibly offensive and then afterwards saying that he never said it, or, more often, says that his controversial statements are "perfect".
Last night at a Fox News "townhall" Trump was asked about claims in the media that he wants to be a dictator. He said that he would be a dictator on day one, but not afterwards.
He has now handed the Democrats (or his GOP foes, not that any of them would dare to use it) a quote in which he admits that he will be a dictator.
Trump believes he is above criticism or consequences. Will America teach this ignoramus buffoon a long due lesson?
-
related
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
72 visitors
"I could be a dictator in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose a single vote" /s
If Biden said something like this, the right wing would be having kittens. But trump says it and they are totally fine with it.
Trump has said on many occasions that as president he can "do whatever he wants". I think Biden should just stay in power to protect our democracy from these radicalized, America hating right wing radicals.
America toying with the idea of a second Trump term is like playing national russian roulette. The chamber is empty until it isn't.
How can you be a dictator on Day One but not afterward? Does he even listen to the words that come out of his mouth?
Honestly? No, he doesn't. He just spits out sentence fragments and waves his hands around.
You are describing "The Trumpy Dance"...
That meme makes me wonder who he is thinking about double fisting.....
And I thought I had raunchy thoughts....
It looks to me like he is trying to punch himself in the face and his arms arent long enough.
It would be much more honest to go with the entire exchange.
Seems like a stretch to call writing Executive Orders for the border and for oil drilling, both of which he wrote in his first term and both of which Biden overturned with his own Executive Orders, as the actions of a dictator. But hey, politics is an ugly business and both sides (yep, I know you hate that term) will cherry pick what they can use to hammer the other side. Being honest and providing full disclosure doesn't win votes. Gotta fire up that base..
This is a CLEAR case of Trump wanting it both ways.
Why not just say, "hell no I wont be a dictator" and then go on to say what he will do on day one about some policy issue?
He wont do that because he knows there is an element in his base that would enjoy him being a dictator. Hell, he would enjoy it himself. Trump has made DOZENS of comments that echo actions dictators do, such as shutting down opposition media. His base loves it.
Trump is an ignoramus, but he is crafty.
He ain’t even crafty. He just says stupid shit and forces his supporters into a mental gymnastics exercise to make it not seem as bad as it is. As always he is making everyone carry his water for him.
And the man is now up to 1,033,478 lies since 2015*
*An exaggeration, of course but I think I'm funny
I don't take them all as lies, some are just stupid statements as the man does bloviate. As we used to say back in the day, he's engaged his mouth but left the brain in neutral.
Most of what comes out of his mouth are lies
Quite the qualification to be president of the United States. /s
That’s sycophantic equivocation; the lies have been documented and rebutted.
He is the one who said he’d be a dictator only on day one, no one else said it for him and that is not stretching his words. When asked if he would be a dictator he said only on day one. He didn’t say no, he didn’t back away from the suggestion, he flat out embraced it. And it was an obvious fact that he wishes to be an authoritarian even before he said it, so there is absolutely no reason to believe that he wouldn’t create an imperial presidency and declare himself president for life if the courts/congress didn’t stop him. The courts I still have some faith in, a GOP congress will happily go along with him.
Let’s assume he didn’t actually mean it as he would be an actual dictator, that still leaves supporters with only 2 ways of looking at his fucked to answer to the most softball question ever tossed to a candidate. Option 1) he is senile as all holy fuck, or he is just a flat out goddamn retard.
Thing is, anyone who would vote for Trump given all that we know is not going to be influenced by a mere comment. These are people who actually believe what this traitor says and/or vote for him for his 'policies' regardless of what he has done and is demonstrably capable of doing.
That's exactly why people vote for him. People are tired of open borders, crime running rampant, a one side judicial system, government censoring free speech, along with the rest of the left's agenda.
That does NOT explain why people are supporting him to be the GOP nominee.
The policies you cite would be supported by pretty much any other GOP candidate for the office. There is no reason to nominate a vindictive traitor when you have substantially more decent individuals running.
So 'voting for policies' does not explain why the GOP is all in for Trump and largely ignoring the other GOP candidates.
Got an explanation for that?
"But but but Biden."
I won't vote for Trump in the primary, I will vote for him if he is the nominee. I don't have an answer for you as to why he has such a large lead. My guess would be people question the 2020 election and feel he is being unjustly prosecuted, in some cases I would agree.
It is a mystery. I appreciate the honest answer.
Amazing that 60% of the GOP might actually still question the 2020 election. Also amazing that 60% of the GOP might think that the indictments against Trump regarding Jan 6th are without merit given even what is publicly known.
Why would you be "Amazed" there's no question that the 2020 election violated laws in many states, along with the strange behavior that took place during vote counting.
Election procedures were changed or amended in some states due to the covid pandemic. In no rational world does allowing for more mail in or drop off voting amount to a "stolen election". MAGA thinks this represents a stolen election for one reason - Trump told them it was. As far as "strange behavior", not one single concrete evidence of stolen votes has ever been produced.
The "dispute" over the 2020 election will go down in history as one of the stupidest f'ing things ever discussed in this country.
Good grief man, there is NO evidence whatsoever that any irregularity in any state would have changed the outcome. Nothing! This has been reviewed repeatedly.
The facts make this crystal clear. Biden legitimately won, Trump lost.
(unbelievable)
I do believe that your imagination is working overtime
So you agree that laws were violated. To say they wouldn't have changed the outcome is trying to prove something that never happened.
Had they all been done by state law I would agree.
I did not comment on that, but I will now. I doubt there is any presidential election in our nation (at least in recent years) where with over 300 million people there is NO case where some people broke election laws.
That is irrelevant. What is relevant is if the (relatively minor) foul play made any difference.
There is NO evidence of foul play that would change the outcome. Without evidence that would have changed the election, you have no case. You have no basis whatsoever to claim that Trump actually won. Such a claim is patently ridiculous (and should be embarrassing at this point).
Please point out where I have "EVER" said Trump won, I'll wait.
But you would vote for him again despite his lies about the election?
I would never vote for a Democrat!
And now you want to equivocate and claim that you were not trying to argue that Trump won???
If you accept the fact that Biden legitimately won the election then what on Earth prompts you to make arguments questioning the results?
Do you normally argue in direct contradiction to your conclusions?
Um, trump is a republican.
By government censoring free speech, is that like book banning? Crime running rampant? Like school shootings? One-sided judicial system? Like a GOP-appointed SCOTUS MAJORITY?
"book bans" might be even more egregiously misused than fascism. I saw a pic the other day of a book store with a stocked book shelf with a banner proclaiming "banned books 25% off"
Do these poeple have any concept of what words actually mean?
What laws and what states? And apparently his own party must have it out for him as well because in my state of Arizona the election was run by republicans and he still lost.
So either you think the democrats are so competent that they can carry out a massive nationwide voter fraud campaign without leaving a shred of evidence that would hold up in court (frankly an impossibility), or Republicans across the country are so fucking incompetent at every level that they cannot find any evidence of such a scheme (more likely to be sure, but they would have accidentally found something by now).
But go ahead, file another suit.
I stated that the 2020 election was officially won by Biden.
No you stated:
Which I provided you with an explanation of why people felt that way.
You objected and argued that there was foul play.
Why do you continue to make things up? This is what I said: Why would you be "Amazed" there's no question that the 2020 election violated laws in many states, along with the strange behavior that took place during vote counting
All of that is true. It's impossible to "Prove" who would have won had those irregularities not happened. Biden won the election, but I can see why people doubt the results.
Please show me where the DOJ got involved with Supreme Court picks.
One lie after another:
And here is you arguing that there was foul play:
You have no argument. Your speculation is nonsense. The 2020 election was legitimately won by Biden. Instead of dealing with that absolutely obvious reality, you are here on a social media forum issuing one lie after another. To what end?
There is no reasoning with anyone who thinks that Trump legitimately won the 2020 election.
It is a contradiction to argue that the 2020 election had foul play that affected the results while acknowledging that Biden won legitimately.
It is utterly absurd to continue to demand proof that the election was not stolen after all the investigations which all resulted in the same conclusion: Biden won the election legitimately.
Organize your thoughts, compare them with the evidence, formulate a position, make an argument.
Utter nonsense.
There is only one thing that matters in regards to "stolen elections", or any election, and that is if everyone who voted was eligible and registered to vote. The individual states check this out, that is why they can say with confidence that their elections were fair in 2020. It doesnt matter if people vote by mail, in person, in a drop box, or by carrier pigeon. Were they eligible to vote and registered to vote? That is all that matters.
[Deleted]
Again.....this entire thread is about you being "AMAZED" how Republicans think.
I provide you my opinion about why they feel that way. You don't want to accept it, you want me to agree with you! Get a fucking grip I will never agree with you.
Name the Lies.
Again for the 1500th time, I never said Trump won the election!!!!!!!
There is overwhelming evidence that there has been no level of foul play that would have changed the outcome in any of the states. It is irrational to use that nonsense as a foundation for an argument.
Biden won the election legitimately. This is a done deal, settled issue.
Ranting and raving, etc. is not an argument. It just illustrates that your position is weak.
Bottom line, it is amazing that anyone would today actually believe that Trump won the election. (And by the way, you need to pay attention to context. I am talking about those who believe that Trump won the election, that does not necessarily mean you personally.)
Remember:
You do not find it amazing that 60% of the GOP might actually still question the 2020 election. You apparently think it is reasonable for people to believe Trump actually won. Otherwise you would not be tripping all over yourself trying to defend this idiotic belief that Biden stole the 2020 election by arguing about 'violation of elections laws' and 'strange behavior'.
Do: Organize your thoughts. Check them against reality. Make a claim. Support it with an argument.
Don't: Engage people with a half-baked argument with the hope that bullshit is persuasive
Were State Election laws violated in 2020, that's a Yes or No question?
They wanted to say "to accommodate the pandemic" so yes, laws were stretched to say the least.
They sure as hell were,,,,,,oh look, a squirrel!
How's Hunter's taxes?
I am not aware of any significant state law violations, but given the number of volunteers in any election, there undoubtedly were. It would be amazing if every individual followed the law 100%.
Now, make your point. Honestly and clearly.
If you can get away with admitting to grabbing women by their pussies, you can pretty much get away with saying anything. For a long time now the problem hasn’t been Donald Trump, it’s his supporters who don’t even care what he says. At this point he could say that the Jewish women violently raped by mobs of hamas militants had it coming, and his hardcore supporters would 100% waive it away and continue on like it was just more locker room talk.
Exactly this. And even if he does say something totally disgusting, they just laugh it off as, "oh big deal". But they hang on Biden's every word. Fuckin' partisan hacks.
And even if he does say something totally disgusting, they just laugh it off as, "oh big deal".
Yeah! And after they laugh it off, they kill Brian Sicknick, amost kill Officer Fanone, shit on the Capitol floors, threaten to hang Mike Pence and look to kill Nancy Pelosi!
It's funny how you complain about propganda and then claim "they kill Brian Sicknick"
The last event prior to Sicknick’s heart attack was an assault by Trump’s MAGA GOONS!
No, per the coroner, he died of natural causes and the cause of death was a stroke. You were misled by propaganda and dishonest Democrats (who lied about his cause of death during Trump's impeachment to make it more sensational). Please don't continue to spread misinformation.
Laughing off another Trump comment!
If you have a heart condition and I beat the shit out of you, and you die as a result, that makes me guilty of manslaughter or murder, Sean.
Either way they are absolutely guilty of assaulting an officer, frankly I am surprised more officers didn’t open fire, they would have been completely justified given the circumstances. Not a single one of them would have faced a day in prison. But hey, they showed an extreme amount of restraint which is their prerogative.
Right. But that didn’t happen. Who was charged with killing sicknick?
the answer: no one, because the state said he died of natural causes and it would be insane and laughed out of court if someone were charged with the murder of a person who died of natural causes.
you are calling the coroner a liar and implying a massively conspiracy to cover up Sicknick’s death exists every time you falsely claim he was murdered. That’s no better than claiming the election was stolen
That’s also true of the all the BLM where hundreds of police officers were injured, including the assault on the White House. Except, of course, the police would alloys certainly been charged if they had a shot an unarmed women at a blm riot
This is similar to the George Floyd case, where the Derek Chauvin apologists claim that Floyd had a bad heart and would have perhaps died soon anyway. So why blame Chauvin?
Lets pretend that Chauvin never knelt on Floyds neck for nine minutes that day. Was George Floyd going to keel over dead that day, or that week, or that month? It is safe to say that such a phenomenal coincidence would be extremely unlikely. Chuavin provoked a reaction in Floyds body that cause him to stop breathing . To say that Floyd was ready to stop breathing anyway is an absurd argument, and frankly, very cruel.
Roughly the same applies to the Sicknick case. Yeah, he had prior health issues. Would he have dropped dead on Jan 7th without the trauma of being beaten by a mob the day before. Was that day simply "his time"? That is an absurd argument also.
You are literally claiming the coroner lied and the Washington DC local government (controlled by democrats) and the Biden doj all engaged in a massive cover up to protect sicknicks murderers, despite their desire to charge everyone and anyone to the full of the extent of the law for their actions that day. but not the cop killer, apparently.
also, the argument is the massive amount of fentanyl Floyd ingested killed him, not pre existing health conditions.
I am not arguing that at all. That is your interpretation. I'm arguing that is highly likely that the attack on him on Jan 6th caused his death the next day. And people can say so without much honest contradiction.
If there were any basis for that, his death would have been ruled a homocide. It wasn't. No different than "believing" the election was stolen without beng able to provide any actual evidence to support it. It's just hope and wishes and a belief that's what must have happened because it fits your political worldview.
I like my explanation much better than yours. Would Brian Sicknick have collapsed and died on Jan 7th if he had not been in a fight with Trumpist rioters at the Capitol Building the day before?
I find that extremely implausible, as do many other people.
The coroner’s job is to determine the medical phenomenon attributable to the death of an individual, the event precipitating that medical phenomenon, unless witnessed by family members, etc., is generally not known to the corner. In Brian Sickick’s case, the chaotic and violent events of the day preceding his stroke, were in fact, too chaotic to pinpoint for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, the cause and effect are obvious.
If you were attacked by a mob Sean and died as a result, but logistically it was impossible to know which mob member struck the fatal blow, the mob is still guilty. In Sicknick’s case, forthcoming trials may well decide that the individual ultimately responsible for January 6, is also responsible for every injury and any deaths that resulted.
In the same way a mob boss who does not pull the trigger is culpable for a “hit” he ordered directly or indirectly, so is the “MOB BOSS” who ordered January 6th!
Depending on trial outcomes, don’t be surprised is Sicknick’s family sues Trump for wrongful death in conjunction with his inciting the imminent lawless action of that day.
It would interesting to see the entire coroner’s report to see if he made any mention of January 6. I will look for it.
Shades of George Floyd...
I like the opinions of medical experts better than yours. You are just wishing.
find that extremely implausible, as do many other people.
lots of people believe things that have no basis in reality because they wish they were true.
Not really. It's all on video and people were charged with assaulting him. Not killing him. Assaulting him.
Yes. as the experts agree, he died of natural causes, a stroke. It was not a homocide.
were attacked by a mob Sean and died as a result, but logistically it was impossible to know which mob member struck the fatal blow, the mob is still guilty
You keep ignroing the facts. (1). tAccording to the experts that examined him, there was no fatal blow. (2) The authorities know exactly who assaulted Sicknick and charged them for that crime. (3). It's litterally medically and legally impossible to charge someone for killing someone who died of natural causes. IF Sicknick's death was caused by anything other than natural causes, it would have been ruled a homocide. Even if they don't who or what caused the injury that killed him, it would have been ruled a homocide. No one has to see an injury occur to make that ruling. That would be silly.
does not pull the trigger is culpable for a “hit” he ordered directly or indirect
Of course. But, first you need a homocide. You keep ignoring the most important fact.
epending on trial outcomes, don’t be surprised is Sicknick’s family sues Trump for wrongful death i
The criminal trial outcome has nothing to do with a civil lawsuit. They can file that any time they want. Of course, the lack of a homocide means it would be laughed out of court, but that would have nothing to do with any pending criminal trials, no matter what the result.
What are the odds that Sicknick would have died on Jan 7th if he hadnt been beaten on Jan 6th? A million to one?
I am not putting anyone on trial for murdering Sicknick. I am saying what he went through on Jan 6th caused his death the next day. And what he went through was a completely uncalled for and unjustified uprising by Donald Trump followers.
The District of Columbia chief medical examiner found that Sicknick had died from stroke, classifying his death as natural [a] and additionally commented that "all that transpired played a role in his condition". [3] [1] [4]
And all that transpired may well be determined to have been the result of imminent lawless action precipitated by Donald Trump!
The corner’s role is to determine the medical reason attributable to one’s death which is not necessarily one and the same as a particular event or series of events responsible for having precipitated that attributed reason.
Nor is it the coroner's role to determine LEGAL CULPABILITY regarding "all that transpired (that) played a role in his condition" … A TRIAL may make that determination ultimately.
Those who allude to "the coroner's report" as the last word on Sicknick's death and possible culpable individuals, NEVER NOTE THE "all that transpired" portion. In doing so, those who call January 6th a "tourist visit" would appear as disingenuous as they actually are.
Latest News on Federal Investigation into Trump's Involvement with January 6th Attack
Yes. exactly. Thanks for demonstrating the examiner entertained your argument and rejected it.
If he could demonstrate Sicknick's death was caused by an assault on Jan 6th, he would have ruled his death a homocide. People are indicted and charged with murder for inducing physical reactions leading to death all the time. It's generally called "homocide by heart attack". The coronor examined the evidence and determined no homicide occured, so the discussion ends there. Everyting else is projecting wishes and wanted results.
If he could demonstrate Sicknick's death was caused by an assault on Jan 6th, he would have ruled his death a homocide.
Not his role, Sean. Quite probable that witnesses and January 6 perpetrators who have already been indicted and/or imprisoned, have offered information in sworn testimony attesting to specific actions on that day. If so, that information will come out in trial and is likely part of discovery.
The coroner was not present at the Capitol on January 6 and yet, he attributed "all that transpired that day" to Sicknick's death! One trial witness under oath who swears he saw a particular individual(s) assault Sicknick (who, after the assault died the next day), could transform the coroner's report to a de facto affirmation of murder or manslaughter.
We will see.
It is 100% the role of the medical examiner to determine if the cause of death was a homocide. It's litterally the entire point of the office's existance. That's what the ME ruled in floyd's case, famously.
ness under oath who swears he saw a particular individual(s) assault Sicknick (who, after the assault died the next day), could transform the coroner's report to a de facto affirmation of murder or manslaughter.
Again, none of that is actually necessary in a homocide. People are charged all the time with murder based on witness statments at the scene that aren't even under oath. The authorities have videotape of Sicknick being assaulted and charged someone for it.
The reason they weren't charged with killing him is there has to be a homicide before any other evidence even comes into play. That's why there's been no charges against anyone for killing Sicknick. It wasn't a homocide.
You are incorrect Sean.
When a medical examiner identifies a manner of death as “homicide,” they are not drawing a legal conclusion .
When a death is not from disease, homicide is simply one of the five permissible classifications of death (the others are “accident, suicide, … execution by the State, or undetermined”).
According to the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME), [h]omicide occurs when death results from a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death .”
In a publication entitled A Guide for Manner of Death Classification , specifically notes “[i]t is to be emphasized that the classification of Homicide for the purposes of death certification is a ‘neutral’ term and neither indicates nor implies criminal intent, which remains a determination within the province of legal processes.”
At trial, among other issues, it may well be decided that "During the riot and attack on the Capitol on January 6th, 140 police officers were injured and 5 gave their lives and that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick died of a stroke from injuries sustained during the riot.
Meanwhile, the longtime partner of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, 42, who died a day after the riot, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in January against Trump and two men involved in assaulting Sicknick.
That contradicts your argument, not mine.
You claimed ME's don't determine if a homocide occurred and now you provide proof that it is, in fact, their role. I'm glad we agree I was correct. The definiton you provided "[h]omicide occurs when death results from a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death .” is exaclty my point. IF your threory of his death was correct, the ME would have had to rule Sicknick's death a homocide under these standards. You make my arugment for me.
neither indicates nor implies criminal intent
Yes.Exactly! You keep providing information that supports my claim, not yours. thanks for that.
That's what we have trials for. The legal system determines who, if anyone, is criminally resposible for the homicide. An accidental death can be ruled a homocide (hunter shooting another hunter) with no criminality attached because it was an accident. It was still a homocide though.
Right! That's what trials are for. January 6 violence victims are not those of "accidental deaths"!
A Medical Examiner's determination as to whether or not a cause of a death is a "homicide" is presumed viable if it is never challenged; while a medical examiner can state that in a report, that conclusion may be ultimately deemed as incorrect if at a trial, testimony proves otherwise.
No one is claiming there was. What argument do you think you are refuting? Sicknick died of natural causes, not of an accident.
Again, in order for a trial for murder or mansluaghter to occur there has to be a homicide. The ME determined the only homicide victim on Jan 6th was Ashly Babbitt and the state decided it was justifiable. That will not change.
hile a medical examiner can state that in a report, that conclusion may be ultimately deemed as incorrect if at a trial, testimony proves otherwise.
Again, of course. A defendant can show that it wasn't a homicide, like they tried to in the Floyid case. But the state has aleady determined there was no homicide in the Sicknick case. There aren't trials about deaths from nautral causes, so the conclusion can't be poved incorrect at trial becuase the issue will never be litigated.
And for the 1,000 time, the State knows who assaulted Sicknick and exactly what happened to him. They have the video and charged the assailints with a crime. The State refused to even try to charge them with manslaughter or murder. There's no missing evidence or material to be cleaned up. As you so helpfully proved, the ME knew what happened on Jan 6th, looked into the possibility of ruling it a homocide and decided to rule it a natural death.
It's all over but the conspriacy mongering from the left.
The evidence only "warrants" the ME examiner's conclusion if it is never challenged in a court proceeding. ME reports are not the result of LEGAL DETERMINATIONS … they are subject to determination within the province of legal processes.”
A ME is virtually never witness to events taking place just prior to an individual's death. For example, a person dying from blunt force trauma to the head which had particles of a stone stairs - implying the deceased "fell" and impact of the fall resulted in the stairs killing him.
What if he was pushed down the stairs and a witness subsequently materialized with video? The ME report then is ultimately accurate only to the extent that the impact with the stairs "resulted in the death," BUT NOT THAT THE IMPACT WAS THE RESULT OF A MURDER.
I already made this distinction between a "medical" vs. a legally criminal evaluation..
A Medical Examiner's determination as to whether or not a cause of a death is a "homicide" is presumed viable if it is never challenged; while a medical examiner can state that in a report, that conclusion may be ultimately deemed as incorrect if at a trial, testimony proves otherwise.
The stroke itself was the physiological and "natural" cause of death, I'm not disputing that. But the ME himself stated in his report "all that transpired played a role in Sicknick's condition". [3] [1] [4}
If, at trial, an eye witness to what "transpired" on January 6th testifies that, "among other things that transpired, "I saw INDIVIDUAL X physically and violently shake officer Sicknick for what must have been at least 10 minutes," and even produces a cell phone video not previously known to have existed," then, the ME report, will be determined as "inconclusive" based on new information.
If no verifiable information ever comes forward to clarify exactly what role "all that transpired in Sicknick's condition" played in his death, then for all time, the ME report will stand. Should such information materialize showing an attack was the cause, THEN WE'LL ALL HAVE SOMETHING.
Can we at least agree on that?
ut the ME himself stated in his report "all that transpired played a role in Sicknick's condition". [3] [1] [4}
And came to the conclusion the death was caused by natural causes. That's what matters. That the ME was aware of what happened the day before and came to that conclusion destroys your case whether you want to accept that or not. .
an eye witness to what "transpired" on January 6th testifies that, "among other things that transpired, "I saw INDIVIDUAL X physically and violently shake officer Sicknick for what must have been at least 10 minute
What trial? The people who assaulted Sicknick have already been convicted and one is already out of jail. You understand all levels of the government have spent years and millions of dollars investigating what happened on Jan 6th, right? There's no secret evidence out there three years later. They already have video of exactly what happend to him. No one else is being tried for anything related to Sicknick.
You can make up scenarios all day but they have no basis in reality. Its no different than Election deniers claiming Trump has secret evidence to overturn the 2020 election. That's all you are doing. Same tactics, different target.
The reality, which hasn't changed now in god knows how many posts, is the ME investigated the circumstances around his death, ruled it natural causes and people have already been charged and convicted for assualting him. Nothing will change that. All you are doing is imagining ways to escape the reality of what actually happened.
If I was Officer Sicknick's family, I would sue the scumbag for everything he's got.
I posted this earlier and it's been conveniently ignored in the ack-and-forth.
The longtime partner of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, 42, who died a day after the riot, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in January against Trump and two men involved in assaulting Sicknick.
The ME was not present so as to know the EXACT DETAILS REGARDING "ALL THAT TRANSPIRED" and could only conclude what he did based on that limited knowledge.
The longtime partner of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, 42, who died a day after the riot, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in January against Trump and two men involved in assaulting Sicknick.
That implies there may be more information regarding what constituted the "ALL"; if a legal decision is handed down stating that a wrongful death occurred, and/or, an eye witness or video shows an assault was involved, the ME report will have to be amended to attribute such evidence,
Should a video surface showing aggravated assault, an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury, we'll see which critters we're talking about.
Lets bring this portion of this seed to an end. Its off topic and you guys have been going over the same ground for hours.
Thank you!! The giant fucking fonts and bolding was hard to stomach.
His most hardcore supporters are actual Nazis so they would agree with him 100%.
Trump's attention span is about 2 minutes so what is he going to do for the other 23 hours and 58 minutes?
pick his nose
Of course that is two minutes longer than brain dead Joe
Last night at a Fox News "townhall" Trump was asked about claims in the media that he wants to be a dictator. He said that he would be a dictator on day one, but not afterwards.
He has now handed the Democrats (or his GOP foes, not that any of them would dare to use it) a quote in which he admits that he will be a dictator.
It is a far cry from he will be a dictator on day 1 but not after to he will be a dictator. Why do dems have to cherry pick comments and repeat them out of context? It makes them look like they are reaching because they have nothing else.
Lets not forget that executive orders can seem like being a dictator and brain dead Joe signed 17 on his first day as president. That is what Trump is talking about yet the left try's to spin it into something it is not.
Time to move the show to another seed.