Trump: "If you read my speech ... People thought that what I said was totally appropriate."
Kevin Liptak @Kevinliptakcnn · 1h Trump insists he bears no responsibility for riots at Capitol. "They’ve analyzed my speech, my words," he said at Andrews. "Everybody to a T thought it was appropriate." 477 439 860 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
The Recount @therecounReplying to @Kevinliptakcnn Reporter: "What is your role in what happened at the Capitol? What is your personal responsibility?" Trump: "If you read my speech ... People thought that what I said was totally appropriate."
VIDEO https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1349022333709803529?s=20
Tags
Who is online
49 visitors
There are MILLIONS of people that will let him get away with this.
Some right here on Newstalkers.
the same ones that get all worked up over unnamed sources from democrats
When Trump says "people", he doesnt mean some people, he means most people, practically everyone.
"People" are saying that Trump's a liar!
"Many people" think that Trump is a terrorist!
People are saying that Comment 2 is totally accurate!
Everyone that is a delusional nutcase.
T for terrorist...
People are saying that Trump's a terrorist!
Why are reporters even bothering to ask Trump questions anymore? Those who have the power to remove that pos need to do so, everyone else needs to treat him like he does not exist.
Exactly.... Make him irrelevant.
Only his tens of millions of followers can make him irrelevant.
And, unfortunately, he still has presidential powers (scary!).
People are saying this by responding to Trump's groupie's comments hereon NT, people who do that are keeping him relevant!
People are also saying that after all-- if he wasn't relevant, people would ignore what his fan club (those "MAGA" sycophants) are saying.
But by constantly arguing with them, they not only keep him relevant-- but make sure those MAGA arguments stay relevant by keeping them on the Front page of NT!
Chuck Todd just described Trump's comments this morning as "deranged".
They want to be promoted to an anchor slot somewhere, lol
They’ve got their fingers crossed for him to berate them for a soundbyte. Pick me! Pick me!
Reporters are tired of wasting their time and energy asking him questions. Trump either calls them stupid (the questions and the reporters), calls them terrible people, and sometimes just up and walks out of the interviews. If he doesn't have an answer, he just makes one up.
implying that unless impeachment charges against him are dropped, his followers will commit acts of violence.
Only in your [removed mind.]
How come his supporters weren't "violent" for the full term of his presidency?
Are you asserting they weren't?
Do you ever tire of wasting other people's time to provide facts that you have no intention of ever caring about.?
[removed]
They were
How so? Be specific and being triggered by a Trump supporter in the same room as you doesn't count.
Nor do feelings.
I don't answer to you bugs
Then you know your post was inaccurate.
Why are reporters even bothering to ask Trump questions anymore? Those who have the power to remove that pos need to do so, everyone else needs to treat him like he does not exist.
Trump sure seems to get a lot to attention in his final days in office. Proof positive that the only thing that's deranged is a shit pot full of angry and unhappy and pissed off left wing whiners whose candidates WON!.
You left wing clowns crack me up. Why aren't all the adoring and fawning media asking Biden questions...other than softballs and marshmallows?
I know. I know....he won't answer them anyway.
Not gonna happen JR. He never urged anyone to riot...those trouble makers acted on their own. Real Trump supports would not resort to violence.
In your heart, you know I'm right.
He never urged anyone to riot...those trouble makers acted on their own.
In your heart, you know you're ignoring the facts....
Speaking of deranged comments [deleted]
Oh, give it up...are you that insecure of your opinions that you have to issue insults
What are you going to bitch about after Trump is gone?
We'll be here...raggin' on Biden
Your comments are insults to intelligent thought. They aren’t even worth this much of a response. I think you owe me a refund.
Greg is here to waste our time Hal...... Post all the facts you want. He's thrilled that you wasted your time providing factual details in doing so.
Biden didn't trigger a riot with idiotic hate speech.
Strange, isn't it?
People are saying that just because he's president of the United States-- and the single most powerful person in the entire world-- that's certainly no reason for the media to cover him!
("Many People" are total assholes, eh?)
Oh and isn't it interesting that Trump TV [Fox News] is NEVER included when the RW decries media coverage.
As we can all see, Fox has pivoted to reporting on everyone's favorite pizza recipe. /s
Of course, Trump's takes no responsibility for any of his actions and until Jan. 20 at noon, is in control of awesome power that can cause irreparable harm. Trump is a ticking time bomb that every thinking person on the planet hopes will NOT go off. Until Joe Biden is sworn in, the world is at the mercy of Trump's sociopathic narcissism.
By "People" Trump meant those who lick his butt...
and the ones in his head who lick his butt
Who is "Everybody"?
Nobody
Who is "Everybody"?
That's right... we want names!
Rudy Giuliani, Richard 'Bigo' Barnett, Larry Rendell Brock, Jacob Anthony Chansley, Lonnie Leroy Coffman, Jenny Cudd, Derrick Evans, Douglas Jensen, Adam Johnson, Klete Keller, Cleveland Grover Meredith Jr., Eric Gavelek Munchel, Nick Ochs, Robert Keith Packer, Thomas Robertson, Jacob Fracker, Brad Rukstales, John Earle Sullivan, Andrew Williams, Kevin and Hunter Seefried.
"People" is "Everybody"!
Everyone who agrees with Trump. Nobody else exists in his narcissistic world.
Considering that he appeared to be speaking from a teleprompter, the “people” he is referring to are likely a team of people who wrote and reviewed the speech before he delivered it.
Never thought of that.
I love seeing lines that I've heard spoken in movies. That line was spoken by Sir Anthony Hopkins in the movie "RED 2" when he discovered an atomic explosive just about to go off on an airplane he was escaping on.
No.
Not at all!
Don't you see what he's doing? He's making a false statement to put the idea into people's head.
But instead of stating it directly (which h you could hold him accountable for)...he attributes it to "people".
Thereby accomplishing two things:
1. He brings up the subect, and thereby puts the idea into peoples' heads.
and
2. He can't be held accountable...because he isn't saying that! (rather...the implication is that "people" did).
Yes...he's a really slippery ball of slime...
But instead of stating it directly (which h you could hold him accountable for)...he attributes it to "people".
Thereby accomplishing two things:
1. He brings up the subject, and thereby puts the idea into peoples' heads.
and
2. He can't be held accountable...because he isn't saying that! (rather...the implication is that "people" did).
Here's another example of his putting an idea into peoples' heads-- but doing it in a way that he can't be haled accountable.
On several occasions he's said if he loses the election, many people will become violent! (Or that there will be violence").
Again, he does that in hopes of doing two things:
1. Some of of his most ardent supporters hadn't thought of becoming violent at the Election results, But after he's mentioned several times that "there will be violence" if he loses-- well, many of them will start considering it!!!
2. However, OTOH he can't be accused of advocating violence-- because he didn't say directly that people should become violent....
He's repeated that tactic on numerous occasions...
I see that a lot around here, actually - people who have figured out just how obnoxious they can be without technically violating the CoC. But I digress.
I think that legally, Trump didn't incite violence. In fact, there appears to be evidence that much of it was planned in advance. But if by some miracle, that mob had managed to overturn the election with their force, would Trump have objected? Would he still leave office? I don't think I have seen him do the right thing against his personal benefit when he didn't have to.
Donald Trump is a well known pathological liar. Still, after all these years there are many people (his followers mainly) who routinely give him the benefit of the doubt as to what he says. There are actually people who take it for granted that Trump is telling them the truth. I dont think there is a way to get anywhere with such people. All we can do is outlast them.
I have to wonder if a case can be made that simply because Trump used the power and influence of the presidency to work up the emotions of his followers by claiming that the election was stolen (that is an emotive charge) that he contributed greatly to the subsequent bad actions of his followers.
This is something that would need to be adjudicated because it is not legally clear cut.
If you mean logically or morally, and in a very general way, I would say yes. But there's not much to do for that. If we're talking about making the case that it is incitement under the criminal law, then no.
Logically or morally - but not criminally - I think any president could be said to be somewhat responsible for the bad actions of his followers.
I think back to Obama, for example, coming out quickly to denounce the cops in the Boston case with Henry Gates, or expressing sympathy about the Michael Brown case. Could it be argued that his rhetoric has led to the murder somewhere of a police officer? Maybe. I'm also reminded of Bush Jr.'s very simple "you are either with us or with the terrorists." How many people were attacked based on that? It depends on how far we are willing to make the connections. Even Trump's faltering attempts to denounce white supremacy have arguably encouraged such people just through their relative weakness. I contrast his efforts with the superior words of Bob Dole.
But it can be such a vague slippery slope. That's why the criminal law on incitement requires that the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
That means the speaker has to be speaking directly to an audience with the intent to incite. Thus, he believes his audience is receptive to it. The action has to be imminent, so it happens almost immediately (I would say the Capitol invasion qualifies, by the way). The action being incited must be unlawful. And his speech is actually likely to have that effect.
What was Trump's intent? Well he explicitly said what he expected. He expected and encouraged a peaceful march that focused on voices, not violence.
Did Trump get these people unnecessarily riled up? Absolutely, but that took time. I think he has taken a lot of otherwise decent people and turned them into lunatics over a period of months. But did he incite them to imminent criminal acts? No way.
Expressing an opinion about the election - no matter how wacky - is not incitement to lawless acts. Neither is accusing people of fraud, even if it's arguably done without evidence. Almost his entire speech is just him arguing - making his case, as it were.
In response to the perceived injustices, he doesn't advocate chaos or lawlessness. He talks about reforms in voter laws. The only thing he said that I think could remotely be construed as incitement was this:
That's it. That's all there is. A lot of people are latching on to those words, but that is extremely common political rhetoric and far too general to be seriously considered incitement. But then he does urge them to this action:
So he wanted them to march for the purpose of giving Republican members of Congress some pride and boldness. To embolden them to action they might take as members of Congress. How can that be incitement to violence?
That is precisely the question. And it is what makes the adjudication challenging because it is very difficult to establish intent. I suspect it would be very difficult without evidence to establish that Trump's intent was for his supporters to break the law. But a prosecutor likely could establish an intent for his supporters to disrupt the proceedings of Congress to delay or in some way influence the process of counting certified electoral votes.
It no doubt can be argued that Trump wanted the disruption to be peaceful (i.e. without violence). Let's say that is successfully argued by the defense and established. The question then is if Trump's actions violated the oath of office. Is it a violation of the oath for the PotUS to encourage his supporters to disrupt or delay a fundamental constitutional process that would, undisturbed, put an end to his power?
So now, given the above, layer in the language (the emotive words) Trump used. Again, this is the PotUS using these words to his supporters — many of which are distraught and/or angry at how the election took place. These people no doubt believed that the election was stolen. That the law of the land was violated and that what was taking place at the Capitol was unconstitutional and defrauding the people of the USA. Certainly all that can be shown to come from Trump's words. One could breathe on this crowd and they would be emotional. Trump fed their emotions. And I think it can be established that he did so intentionally ... to agitate them into action.
Thus I certainly can see a case. Both sides can make decent arguments. Definitely a legal proceeding that would be interesting to observe since this is not cut & dried.
What is cut & dried though is that Trump has acted disgracefully as PotUS and it is in the best interest of the nation to ensure he never has the opportunity to have such influence again.
If it were an unlawful disruption, yes. But there is nothing unlawful about marching down a public street to shout at your representatives.
Sure, but being emotional is not a crime. Neither is inspiring emotion in someone.
Well, his whole of treatment of elections in general has been pathetic and embarrassing, starting with the 2016 election, when he alleged massive, widespread voter fraud - with no evidence - for an election he won. I mean, it boggles the mind.
I think he knew he was lucky to get elected in 2016, and that he'd be even luckier to get reelected, so he has been harping on this election fraud stuff since well before November in the hope that someone would come rescue him from the inevitable.
This is not to say there isn't a lot about our elections that could be improved. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is that Trump has never been able to accept the fact that he is just not wildly popular with even a majority of the American people. He has many devoted followers, but they are not a majority of the country.
And he talks about a landslide victory! You won't often meet people with the Super Power to delude themselves that much.
I am not convinced that the PotUS agitating a crowd —who already believe (because of him) that they have been robbed, etc.— to disrupt a fundamental constitutional process that would result in him losing power, would not rise to the level of violating the oath of office. But, again, no way to know until the professionals adjudicate (if ever).
Trump has surpassed my lowest expectations for him. I expected him to deny the loss, etc. But I did not expect him to actively try to influence state officials or to engage in dozens (61?) of lawsuits. I wonder now, seriously, if Trump had the means (which happily he does not in the USA today), would he try to use the powers of the presidency to illegally hold executive power? If the military, for example, would follow his orders (which they will not), would he have used them?
At this point, I cannot dismiss this notion as ridiculous.
I don't think he would have sought their help, but only because that would expose him as culpable. I do think that if someone else independently took control of the country and turned it over to him, he would not turn it down. Thankfully, I don't think that scenario is actually within the realm of possibility.
Well happily the Trump term is almost over. My focus is now on Biden. The key question on my mind remains: 'how much influence will the more extreme D factions have on him?'.
Shouldn't Trump's actions AFTER the rally be part of the evidence to answer that question?
Trump FAILED to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' AND he FAILED to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed'.
Of course that IS predicated by 'to the best of my ability' but no thinking person would think that Trump was unable to act to defend the Capitol and the Congress.
The moment that Trump left the stage, I presume he was made aware of the altercations happening at the Capitol. Instead of getting back on stage and addressing HIS followers, he went to the WH and further enraged his followers by naming Pence a coward in a tweet. Minutes later, the Capitol was breached.
Trump didn't send back up to the Capitol, EVER. It's been made clear through reporting that Pence and the Sec of the Army authorized the deployment of the NG. There has been NO pushback from Pence or the Sec of the Army on that reporting.
For over and HOUR, Trump took NO action to mitigate the damage and then it was a video tweet in which he STILL spewed lies about the election and said he understood their pain but they needed to go home now. Trump said that to CRIMINALS acting on HIS behalf.
If THAT isn't a violation of Trump's oath of office, WHAT would be?
Violating the oath of office is subjective. The legal process must, in part, determine if Trump's actions violated the oath to the (subjective) level sufficient to convict him.
The legal argument, if we get to hear it, should be interesting.
The violation of an oath is subjective when it is based on the opinion of the subject.
Do you think that Trump can claim that in his opinion, that further enflaming his followers and doing NOTHING to mitigate the damage by the rioters fulfilled his oath?
Would any 'reasonable' person believe that claim? I for one do NOT believe that the Commander in Chief is that powerless nor should he/she EVER be that incompetent.
Dulay, my point is that the legal case here is not cut & dried. I am not interested in debating opinion. I am, however, interested in the legal proceedings.
I presumed that invited a debate on opinion since THAT is all we have at this juncture. In fact, both you and Tacos have been exchanging opinions. Guess I'm not invited.
Read what I wrote to Tacos! Note that I did not debate his opinion ... did not make an argument that his view was wrong.
Here is a critical statement from me in that regard:
I am saying that I do not want to debate anyone's opinion on this matter. The reason is because the matter, in my opinion, is not clear cut. I personally am not interested in going around in circles with someone on our opinions of what I consider to be a gray legal matter (Trump's intent as determined by adjudication and the legal consequences of same). ( ... or debate whether or not the matter is gray )
Maybe Tacos! is keen to engage in debate on this matter.
Partly, it depends on the forum adjudicating the question. If we're talking about an impeachment trial, then violations of oaths, high crimes and misdemeanors, etc. are whatever Congress says they are. So far, though, it seems to be that impeachment happens when a public officer takes an action that contradicts the Constitution. Failing to take an action (historically speaking) hasn't inspired much in the way of discipline.
Outside of that, there wouldn't be any criminal avenue for addressing the matter. In civil court, there hasn't been much success holding executives at any level of government accountable for either doing their job poorly or failing to do it at all. The general remedy is to recall them or choose to not reelect them. There is always someone who thinks the president, governor, or mayor should be reacting to something more or better than they are.
Considering the recent record, it would seem deeply hypocritical for Democrats to punish Trump for being slow to control a mob when they have been urging mayors and governors to ignore law-breaking mobs all year. We saw protests rage for days, weeks, and even months - sometimes with massive property damage and deadly consequences. Nancy Pelosi said people are going to do what they're going to do. The Capitol riot was awful, but it was at least over in a few hours. On top of that, Trump did actually send out a message urging those people to go home.