Lawyers representing the Capitol insurrectionists are building a damning case against Trump
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The allegations bolster House Democrats' impeachment case against Trump and expose him to more legal risk.
It's an inconvenient development for Trump, who is not only staring down a looming Senate impeachment trial but also may face criminal liability for his actions.
President Donald Trump speaks at the "Stop The Steal" rally on January 6. Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
-
Attorneys representing people arrested in connection with the Capitol riot are focusing on Trump.
-
They're blaming him for inciting the deadly siege with his spread of disinformation about the election.
-
The allegations bolster House Democrats' impeachment case against Trump and expose him to more legal risk.
The rioters were adamant when they stormed the US Capitol: Joe Biden and the Democrats had stolen the 2020 election from Donald Trump. Congress wasn't doing anything to stop it, so it was up to patriotic Americans like themselves to save the country.
Now many of the insurrectionists, facing a multitude of federal charges and lacking the protection of a presidential pardon, are changing their tune and laying the blame for their actions squarely at the former president's feet.
It's an inconvenient development for Trump, who is not only staring down a looming Senate impeachment trial but also may face criminal liability for his actions .
"Let's roll the tape," said Al Watkins, the defense attorney representing one of the defendants, Jacob Chansley.
"Let's roll the months of lies and misrepresentations and horrific innuendo and hyperbolic speech by our president designed to inflame, enrage, motivate."
It won't impact Trump in court. In criminal cases, all the lawyer is trying to do is create reasonable doubt in the jury, so they point the finger at someone else. Those cases are not adjudicating the matter of whether or not Trump is actually responsible, and conclusions reached by fact-finders in those cases would not be admissible as evidence against Trump in his own case.
The lefties are miking this mostly peaceful protest for all it's worth.
Well, more accurately-- their defense lawyers are...
And rightfully so!!!
WTF?
A "mostly peaceful protest"...resulting in 5 deaths!
A mostly peaceful protest
WTF? A "mostly peaceful protest"...resulting in 5 deaths!
He Dreamed of Being a Police Officer, Then Was Killed by a Pro-Trump Mob
The death of Brian Sicknick, a military veteran and experienced Capitol Police officer, amplified the tragedy of Wednesday’s riots and undermined President Trump’s pro-law-enforcement claims.
WASHINGTON — Brian Sicknick followed his Air National Guard unit to Saudi Arabia, Kyrgyzstan and a military base in his home state of New Jersey, all in the hopes of one day wearing a police uniform. It was a wish fulfilled more than 10 years ago when he joined the police department tasked with protecting the U.S. Capitol.
Then on Wednesday, pro-Trump rioters attacked that citadel of democracy, overpowered Mr. Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support. He died on Thursday evening.
Crowd of thousands...
less than a hundred rioted.
And no one knows for sure how many lefties were involved
And no one knows for sure how many lefties were involved
GET SMARTER HERE!
McConnell Says Trump ‘Provoked’ The Capitol Mob
Just curious, is your REAL name Alex?
"Silent messages"? Those "silent messages" were heard all the way to the other side of the world.
McConnell says...
Says!
That means...not silent!
Nice try-- but no cigar!
It's an inconvenient development for Trump, who is not only staring down a looming Senate impeachment trial but also may face criminal liability for his actions .
"Let's roll the tape," said Al Watkins, the defense attorney representing one of the defendants, Jacob Chansley.
"Let's roll the months of lies and misrepresentations and horrific innuendo and hyperbolic speech by our president designed to inflame, enrage, motivate."
I'm not so sure. SCOTUS has set some precedents on incendiary political speech by a politician so the bar for criminal liability is set very high. As I understand it the prosecution has to prove intent. And as the phrase in Trump's speech included the following :
So I think it's going to be very hard to prove intent in court. After all, if they removed all politicians for incendiary speech the Capital would be almost empty. Course I don't know that would be such a bad thing...
As to the Senate trial, again the bar is very high. I don't know if it's even been determined if a trial can happen now, that is still going back and forth. It's gonna be interesting, but IMO the longer this drags on the more like a partisan witch hunt this looks like. Pelosi's own words were that Trump was such a clear and present danger to the US that they had to immediately impeach him and remove him. But they didn't immediately move to remove him. And IMO the longer it drags on the worse it looks.
I'm not trying anything. I'm just telling you how it is.
If Trump were to be criminally indicted - which is the course I have said multiple times makes more sense than impeachment - the legal findings based on the rolling of tape in someone else's case would not be relevant to his case.
The Senate decides whether or not the trial will proceed. And since the Republicans humiliating defeat in both Georgia Senate races-- the Democrats now control the Senate.
'Nuff said.
But "they " may introduce a second article.
Whether they do or not, the phone calls to Raffesberger & Bryan and the firing or the US ATTY for North Georgia
will come into play as well as the reported attempt to replace Acting AG Rosen with someone who would just void the GA election as Trump insisted.
It's not just BAD behavior, it's criminal.
And it could sway the jury.
In the past, a Senator was impeached after he was kicked out, and a Cabinet member was impeached after he agreed to resign.
That is believed to be enough ground for the Senate to finish what the House started during Trump's term.
I'm sure people will argue back and forth about whether impeaching Trump is proper at this time. Ultimately, though, what is proper for impeachment is whatever the Congress says is proper.
I think even the Chief Justice, who must preside, would decline to make a ruling one way or the other, and I also think the Court as a whole would say it doesn't have jurisdiction to decide the matter. Per the Constitution, the House has the sole power of Impeachment, and the Senate has the sole power to try Impeachments. That doesn't really leave room for judicial review.
And right after that, lets roll the tapes of democratic lawmakers like Mad Maxine Wters who told her lemmings to get in the faces of Trump officials, or Pelosi who said that she is not sure why there are not more riots or protests, but there should be. There are many more to choose from.
Many of those democrats that had inflammatory comments were directly and indirectly responsible for the months of rioting, looting and burning in in countable blue cities this past summer.
There has never been a democrat to condemn these actions, and of any tried, it was only because the polls showed they needed to. .
Why state that falsehood then through in the caveat?
Trump has made several wooden scripted statements too, because "he had to".
I don't think it's clear if the CJ has jurisdiction now, he is specified by the Constitution if Trump were still in office.
The jury of Senators does based on precedence, with or without Justice Roberts.
Seems pretty clear
If we're going to say that his presence in office in relevant, then we would have to abandon the whole thing. You're either trying the President of the United States or you aren't. If he's not the president for the purposes of this clause, then he can't be the president for the purpose of impeachment.
So show us the democrats that have condemned ANTIFA and BLM, specifically for the violence and destruction they have committed.
He has? Show us some statements he has had to make because he "had to".
That is the conundrum for some people. If he is no longer POTUS then the Chief Justice need not attend.
But impeachments started against a sitting Senator 7 Cabinet Member continued after they left office, because leaving office is not considered to be a "Get out of jail free card".
You already admit that some have and challenged their sincerity.
Look them up yourself.
Ok, I will play this one more time.
The former president was always insincere when he read from a script or the teleprompter.
His 01/13/21 speech was reportedly forced by , and possibly written by, Jared Kuushner to "save the brand name of Trump"
That the president was uncomfortable is an understatement, yet he managed to express no remorse.
Still no regret expressed over the deaths from the pandemic either.
Sad.
Liberal speak for
"I really don;t have proof. I just make up stuff".
Your statement
indicates you already saw those and judged them to be insincere, why demand proof of something you already admitted to?
I guess you are just here to be disagreeable.
So be it.
I agree.
The longer it drags on, the more facts will emerge.
And the more witnesses (and perps) will be found.
So its to Trumps advantage to have it end quickly!
Don't answer that-- don't you see what he's trying to do!
(Sneaky, eh?)
President Donald Trump speaks at the "Stop The Steal" rally on January 6.
They're blaming him for inciting the deadly siege with his spread of disinformation about the election.
What were his exact words.
What were his exact words.
GIYF!
I would think that someone, somewhere, is making a compilation of all the times Trump said the election was rigged against him, that he would refuse to accept a loss, all the BS about "Stop the Steal" and the constant invites to interfere with voting locations or refuse the results from heavily minority Democratic areas.
And there's going to be a ton of it because he began campaigning for reelection the minute he was inaugurated in 2017.
Did you know his campaign financed and organized the rally on Nov 23 ? His fingerprints are all over everything.
Maybe he didn't think they would kill and injure cops, or die from being trampled to death or have medical emergencies.
That does not excuse the way he participated.
IMHO
You made the allegation so provide the words to back up your allegation or withdraw it.
The allegations bolster House Democrats' impeachment case against Trump and expose him to more legal risk.
The rioters were adamant when they stormed the US Capitol: Joe Biden and the Democrats had stolen the 2020 election from Donald Trump. Congress wasn't doing anything to stop it, so it was up to patriotic Americans like themselves to save the country.
Now many of the insurrectionists, facing a multitude of federal charges and lacking the protection of a presidential pardon, are changing their tune and laying the blame for their actions squarely at the former president's feet.
That's what you do when you're trying to keep yourself out of jail. However, evidence is mounting that these violent actions were planned in advance of January 6. That makes them less "rioters" and more "terrorists." It also tends to make them more responsible, not less.
Trump campaign filed for the 01/06/21 rally on 11/23/20 with 8 Trump campaigner officials signing the nec permits and funnelling
1.7 million to a couple responsible for the platform, podium and sound system ( sounds like a bit much doesn't it ?)
Another $million went to various organizations and individuals to pay for attendance and transportations.
The rioters/terrorists/Trumps obeyers have a lot to answer for as well as Mr. Trump.
I think it's easy to believe that between the election and January 6th, the POTUS was involved and informed every day.
Here's the defense their lawyers are using:
"Let's roll the tape," said Al Watkins, the defense attorney representing one of the defendants, Jacob Chansley.
"Let's roll the months of lies and misrepresentations and horrific innuendo and hyperbolic speech by our president designed to inflame, enrage, motivate."
So the actual testimony as to what influienced their decision to break the law will have considerable weight!!!
Speech that is so remote in time and place from the actual acts of violence has long been dismissed as not satisfying the test for criminal incitement.
Granted it was probably at least 20- 30 minutes or so before the first MAGA terrorists actually entered the Capitol itself!
Is that so remote in time and place?
Well-- you might be right!
(I suppose the meaning of the words "remote in time and place" are a matter of opinion!
)
And in terms of "remote" in terms of distance-- I'd have to check.
I'm not sure how far the site of Trump's speech inciting the violence was from the actual Capitol itself. (Although they did walk there-- so again, the meaning of the term "remote" may be a matter of opinion).
I was responding to your words:
How does "months" become 20-30 minutes?
That's not how any of this works.
Well, of course you are entitled to your opinion!
(Not that there's anything wrong with speculation)
But the actual determination is up to the jury!!!
Leftists are accusing Trump of inciting the riot at the Capitol. I invite anyone on here to post the exact words that would constitute inciting the riot.
Not even your tabloid news sources or your comedy news channels are repeating any of those "words".
Why is that? Because they know their lemmings are far more apt to believe what they say he did than believe what is before their very eyes.
The real reason for this impeachment and removal attempt has been said by a few democratic lawmakers in public like the idiot Hirono. They are so scared of him they don't want him to be able to run for office again.
Pesky things like laws and evidence don't matter. They want Trump to be guilty, so he is.
Perhaps not to you-- but they do to a jury.
(And probably also do a sizeable proportion of those watching the Impeachment hearings as well...???)
LOL--that's not how it works!
Is the NY TImes a tabloid?
Again-- I suppose that's a matter of opinion.
Yes...now show me where they have printed the words of the Jan 6 speech that caused a riot on the Capitol.
giyf!!!
How about people who were actually there...who will be testifying under oath?
Under penalty of perjury if they lie!
What jury are you referring to?
Yes...because witnesses for the democrats always tend to tell the truth s/ We learned that during the first impeachment trial that got Trump removed.....oh....wait...
GIYF!!!
No problema-- we have lots of time...no need to rush (what's your hurry anyway???)