Ahh there is a difference between advocacy and incitement!

It should also be noted that extremist groups act on their own.

We still don't know why the National Guard would be "bad optics?"

So donald advocated for overthrowing the government instead of inciting it?

Either way doesn't sound very good for your boy.

We still don't know why the National Guard would be "bad optics?"

Perhaps that's because Gen. Piatt denied making that statement even though at least 9 people testified that he did. 

We still don't know why the National Guard would be "bad optics?"

The Acting Sec Def previously cited media stories alleging that the President’s advisors were pushing him to declare martial law to invalidate the election and that he was an ally installed as the Acting SecDef to facilitate a coup.  Miller also was concerned about a 3 Jan open letter from 10 former Secretaries of Defense warning the DoD not to use the military in a manner antithetical to the Constitution.  Mr. Miller stated that he “made a very deliberate decision that I would not put U.S. military people … East of the 9th Street, northwest.  ...  And the reason for that was I knew if the morning of the 6th or prior if we put U.S. military personnel on the Capitol, I would have created the greatest Constitutional crisis probably since the Civil War.”

That was all BEFORE the USCP Chief BEGGED the Army for an emergency deployment. 

My comment is about the specific statement by a Gen. Piatt that the seeder referred to. 

My comment is about the specific statement by a Gen. Piatt that the seeder referred to. 

I think that only the SecDef had the authority to direct the DCNG to respond to a civil disturbance at the Capitol in support of the USCP.  

DCNG’s prep and operational posture on the 6th  was for traffic control  and Metro crowd control.  The 1420 request was late and meant a was a cold start.  Deploying them piecemeal, not properly equipped could have been an additional disaster.  

I think that only the SecDef had the authority to direct the DCNG to respond to a civil disturbance at the Capitol in support of the USCP.  DCNG’s prep and operational posture on the 6th was for traffic control and Metro crowd control.

I've been doing some research and here is a find that hasn't been shared here as far as I know. It's a fascinating and exasperating read: 

The Harder Right: An Analysis of a Recent DoD Inspector General Investigation and Other Matters
By Col. Earl G. Matthews, U.S. Army, 1 December 2021

politico

Subject was, “Triggers for QRF Deployment,” the e-mail read:
The QRF will be on standby but won't be used unless required. The CG will deploy the QRF based on a MPD Chief of Police request. Indicators that the QRF may deploy include the following events:

Flash crowd that is not manageable by assembled Law Enforcement;

Civil unrest not manageable by assembled Law Enforcement Civil Disturbance Units;

Large scale vandalism and looting (ie City Center area);

Vandalism or damage to National Monuments or Museums;

Attempts to breach Federal or District government buildings;

Acts of arson.

Very respectfully,
COL Jonathan S. Ebber

So those are the events that the DCNG leadership viewed as triggers for the DCNG that were helping with traffic to deploy wherever they were needed in an emergency. 

 The 1420 request was late and meant a was a cold start.  Deploying them piecemeal, not properly equipped could have been an additional disaster.  

From that same link:

While the attack on the Capitol was not anticipated, LTG Piatt is misleading the committee 
when he implies that the DCNG could not have been able to respond immediately to the riot on 
Capitol Hill. Indeed, MG Walker, BG Dean, BG Ryan and LTC Hunter all wanted to respond 
immediately. They could have directed their 40 person QRF to move immediately from Joint Base Andrews to link up with USCP near the Capitol. DCNG could also have diverted personnel 
supporting the traffic control mission to the Capitol. These soldiers and airmen possessed the requisite riot gear in their vehicles. DCNG estimates 131 riot gear-equipped troops could have been mustered immediately and an additional 200 Guardsmen within the following 2 hours.

snip

During the afternoon meeting that Piatt references in his statement, with the Secretary, 
the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Army Staff presents, the discussion of what might happen 
in an emergency came up. MG Walker listed the triggers for QRF employment contained in 
COL Ebbert’s e-mail to the Secretary and no one objected. However, at 9:12PM, on the evening 
of 4 January, an Army Staff action officer changed the draft document that MG Walker had 
reviewed with the Secretary earlier in the afternoon .

The draft delegation to MG Walker had initially read:

You may employ the DCNG Quick Reaction Force (QRF) only as a last resort, in 
response to a request from an appropriate civil authority. If the QRF is employed, 
DCNG personnel will be clearly marked and/or distinguished from civilian law 
enforcement. You will notify me immediately upon your authorization. 

So initially, the authority to deploy the QRF was with MG Walker.

The link continues:

The changed delegation memo read: I withhold authority to approve employment of the DCNG Quick Reaction Force 
(QRF) and will do so only as a last resort, in response to a request from an 
appropriate civil authority. I will require a concept of operation prior to 
authorizing employment of the QRF. If the QRF is employed, DCNG personnel 
will be clearly marked and/or distinguished from civilian law enforcement 

Based on the link, Piatt and Flynn lied their asses off. I think Piatt has been promoted since Jan. 6. 

The Harder Right: An Analysis of a Recent DoD Inspector General Investigation and Other Matters
By Col. Earl G. Matthews, U.S. Army, 1 December 2021

Thanks, I look forward to ready it.  If your interested, read ASecDef Miller's written testimony and GEN Milley's House testimony.  They claimed that they were very worried that Trump would re-purpose troops and invoke the Insurrection Act and cited multiple examles of why they were worried.

To ensure a fair hearing, Dershowitz said there should have been an independent commission, one like the 9/11 Commission.

''People would take seriously a nonpartisan, non-biased commission,'' he said.

That's ironic considering the FACT that in May of 2021 the Republicans filibustered the bill, passed in the House, to create just such an independent bi-partisan commission. 

So, I guess Dershowitz should have rallied the GOP for that Commission way back when it mattered. 

That's ironic considering the FACT that in May of 2021 the Republicans filibustered the bill, passed in the House, to create just such an independent bi-partisan commission. 

So true.  

Dershowitz, is a damn comical 'joke' in his old age. Clearly, he needs something to console himself with as a legacy-high profile 'situational politics' seems to be his opportunity of choice.

It's sad really, what some people will do for a legacy mention in history books.

I don't have time for another round of tiresome bull patty.

That's all he's got so . . . .  

No more time for exhaustive banter.

You must get tired easily, . . . that was two days ago! I'm fine. Just still don't want any banter still.

In that case: I release you to get on with your life!  Or go see other people. Step-off!

''So, President Trump committed no crimes,'' he said. ''Anybody who thinks that he did fails to understand the First Amendment.''

Incitement and conspiracy are difficult to prove

Ah, the no accountability clause...

A lying geriatric narcissist defending a lying geriatric narcissist. A match made in hell.

Do you think Trump encouraged his supporters to believe that their votes were disenfranchised by a corrupt system and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS?  

Do you accept the fact that the sitting PotUS has a powerful podium and carries great influence over tens of millions of Americans?   That his suggestions are believed at face value?    That his comments are in fact leading the charge?

Do you think Trump encouraged his supporters to believe that their votes were disenfranchised by a corrupt system and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS?  

OK let's say he did.

What that should mean for you and other leftists is that Chuck Schumer should be held responsible, charged with inciting violence to a SC justice, for saying what he did at the steps of the SC.After all, Shumer named Kavanaugh by name and here we are not that long later, some liberal nut case drove across the country for one reason...to kill Kavanaugh.

My guess is your reply is going to be something along the lines of "apples to oranges", or nanny nanny boo boo.

I believe all of that. But as Dersh points out, you don’t get to say his words are influential while ignoring the part where he explicitly and specifically told people to protest peacefully and patriotically. Attempting to overthrow the government by force is the exact opposite of that.

Imo he is trying to have the best of both worlds. Saying to fight like hell in one breath, then come back and say go in peace.

I think donald knows exactly what he is saying only he adds a caveat at the end that he can use as an excuse to say, hell, I tried to tell them to be peaceful, with a wink and a smile.

One of my points is that the preponderance of Trump’s rhetoric is incendiary.    A few words of peace do not nullify the incendiary rhetoric.

What that should mean for you and other leftists …

Do not label me a leftist.   Not everyone to your left is a  ‘leftist’.

Chuck Schumer should be held responsible, charged with inciting violence to a SC justice, for saying what he did at the steps of the SC.

The same old stupid talking point.   Schumer and Waters, et.al. were wrong to use incendiary rhetoric.    

What you refuse to comprehend is that an isolated speech by a politician is tiny in impact compared to months of incendiary rhetoric by the president of the USA.

Get it?   Wrong for each but much worse when repeated for months by the holder of the most powerful office on the planet.

Saying to fight like hell in one breath, then come back and say go in peace.

Politicians of all denominations say something along the lines of "fight like hell" and have rarely, if ever, been accused of inciting violence.

What it means is that those that believe their votes were stolen need to fight to ensure the election was correct

In essence, he said, fight for your beliefs, but do it peacefully.

He is not responsible for those idiots to do what they did in the Capitol, and for any of them to say they did it because Trump told them to are just trying to get their asses out of trouble.

Trump is not responsible for these idiots reactions.

If you believe that, then you believe Schumer is responsible for the leftist idiot that drove cross country to kill Kavanaugh.

Any other belief is nothing short of delusion.

I understand you will never see the correct light, but at least we try to show it to you.

On one hand, you have Trump Saying to peacefully and patriotically come to the Capitol to protest, where one person was killed, which was an unarmed protester.

On the other hand, you have a US Senator telling the world that two SC justices will pay the price for what they did or may do, and someone answered the call to actually make Kavanaugh pay by admittingly coming to kill him.

And you think the first is worse.

Sad state of affairs we are facing.

Not everyone to your left is a  ‘leftist’.

I am way to the left of you.   Haha

Oddly, on certain things I can lean right.

I see this all the time.   Typically the more right someone is the more they think another is a 'leftist'.   Partisans, similarly, think that anyone who agrees with the 'other side' on an issue is ipso facto 'one of them'.  

This is pathetic.   You offer for comparison Trump speaking of peace vs. a Senator using incendiary language.

You blatantly ignore that Trump used incendiary language for MONTHS as PotUS.

You clearly are not even slightly attempting to be objective.

You blatantly ignore that Trump used incendiary language for MONTHS as PotUS.

I never said that Trump blabbing on for months after the election was not wrong. In fact, he was an idiot for doing so., However, I am concentrating on one specific date, as most that absolutely hate Trump are doing, and comparing that to what Schumer said.

Schumer was far more incendiary..

Schumer was far more incendiary..

You are comparing a single speech by the Senate Majority leader to months of incendiary language (and actions) by the president of the United States.

Both are wrong.   The scales are grossly different.

You have your beliefs, and mine are much different.

I am not comparing months of Trump stupidity to Shchumer one time. I am comparing Trump Jan 6 speech to Schumer one time incendiary, SC threatening speech. 

Trump did not threaten anyone during that speech.

You have your beliefs, and mine are much different.

This is not about beliefs it is plain and obvious fact.

I am not comparing months of Trump stupidity to Schumer one time. I am comparing Trump Jan 6 speech to Schumer one time incendiary, SC threatening speech.

Well you can narrow your comparison if you wish but by doing so you are distorting what actually took place in the real world.   But if you want to simply compare the single speech of Trump on the 6th to the single speech of Schumer then Schumer's would be worse.

Happy?   Now expand your scope from that extremely narrow focus back to reality.   The effect of Trump's rhetoric (and actions) for months and its potential effect on the insurrection vs. Schumer's single speech.

Note:  I am no fan of Schumer.

I'm not going to continue arguing something we will never see eye to eye with.

Agree to disagree.

On one hand, you have Trump Saying to peacefully and patriotically come to the Capitol to protest, where one person was killed, which was an unarmed protester.

Protest what? 

I'm not going to continue arguing something we will never see eye to eye with.

You are dead wrong.

Your opinion.

Again, I posted agree to disagree. I believe that means the conversation is over.

I was being kind.

You might want to follow the advice.

Obtuse

The old "wink and a nod" approach? Dershowitz is ignoring the totality of the rally speakers and the sum total of the pronouncements made by Donald himself. Tagging on as an afterthought: 'Protest peacefully' is tantamount to 'forces' landing in full battle array announcing: "We come in peace." Or, as past monarchies use of the Doctrine of Discovery   envisioned: surrender or face our wrath and shredding asunder!

Note: Yet again, Ender and TiG are already on this point above.

I believe that means the conversation is over.

That was going to be my last comment.   Stop replying if you want to actually end.

Imo he is trying to have the best of both worlds.

They all play that game. As much legitimate opportunity as there is to criticize Trump, he is often attacked for doing or saying things that other politicians have done since the invention of politics. That actually has the effect of undermining the legitimate criticism because it makes it seem like the real point of all this is politics, not justice.

Saying to fight like hell in one breath, then come back and say go in peace.

I guarantee you I can find video clips of Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, and others telling a crowd or an audience to “fight like hell” over something. It is extremely common political rhetoric.

A few words of peace do not nullify the incendiary rhetoric.

To Dersh’s point, though, this is a judgment that can only be fairly made with complete information. If you’re not willing to include the few words of peace in the evidence, then any condemnation of his incendiary rhetoric is unfair, premature, and biased. It is therefore, unjust.

As I noted upfront, Dershowitz is technically correct.  

If you’re not willing to include the few words of peace in the evidence, then any condemnation of his incendiary rhetoric is unfair, premature, and biased. It is therefore, unjust.

Factor in the words of peace but do so with an appropriate weight.   I have never even hinted at suppressing evidence.   What I argued is that the few words of peace from Trump are a drop in the bucket over his multi-month's incendiary comments.

It would be unjust to simplistically hold that a few words of peace nullify / equate to all the incendiary rhetoric (and actions).

Did Donald pretend not to know that he was officially told by his AG and other cabinet officials and campaign heads he lost the election? So why hold a 'constitutional' challenge to the election on January 6, 2021?  Please proceed. . . .

This incident and the reason for investigations for months did not occur because Donald 'tacked' on a few words of 'peace' while telling people literally and implying with banners, talking points, and all forms of advertised paraphernalia: "STOP THE STEAL!" 

The rhetoric was hot when the attendees arrived. And certainly, the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers (promising a 'wild' event) had no intentions of being peaceful. We were even told this on NT by some vitriolic commenters (gone or silent now - "The People's Fish" and the 'creole' guy that I can't recall his name) that have hung their heads in shame and departed. Honestly, I miss their rhetoric.   My point is there were a promise of catastrophe if Donald did not get his way in 2021-and it happened.

Dershowitz is full of shit. Why offer his opinion now? Where was he when McCarthy could have used the 'assist' in wisdom? Dershowitz is a day late and a dollar short!

Dershowitz is technically correct.   I consider his implicit defense of Trump to be misguided but I cannot fault him technically.

Why is he speaking up before the presentation is complete (politics)? It is a demonstration of a lack of professional discipline. Why did he not make an offer to advice the committee of a 'technicality' ahead of now? Why does Dershowitz, a biased DEFENSE attorney or advisor for controversial characters/clients (dregs of society) in keeping with the mode three times show up for Donald J. Trump, a controversial sitting and former president?

Dershowitz presents a lop-sided proposition out of term which he knows this 'panel' could not fulfill, because republicans were going to make a mockery out of justice, but democrats would not go along with it this time.

There does come a time, in every good man's or woman's life time and profession when discipline should require them to shut up; clam up; or switch "off" and let justice take its course.

Dershowitz is not listening to his discipline. Why? That is beyond of the scope of this discussion. But, I can opine that the 80'ish D, wants a lasting legacy no matter how controversial a character it causes him to be.

Question: How biased is Dershowitz to not make acknowledgement that the January 6, 2021 commission offered the republicans a proper (not mocking) set of seats on the panel but they chose to take a political stand-offish approach in order to simply jeer from the 'door' to the hearings?

Dershowitz is full of chickenshit!

Also, we know that technically in a court of law (Dershowitz certainly knows this) a judge rules on what is allowable and acceptable in the proceedings, all in the effort to get at the truth. Dershowitz knows damn well it is not this set of democrats/republicans duties to charge Donald and be the voice for his justified defense simultaneously. No court, were this a trial, would allow it.

Why is he speaking up before the presentation is complete (politics)?

As I noted, I think Dershowitz fancies himself as an authority on these matters and is opining partly to stroke his own ego.

You are comparing a single speech by the Senate Majority leader to months of incendiary language (and actions) by the president of the United States. Both are wrong.   The scales are grossly different.

Really?

You and others dodged a bullet the other day when a madman decided to call 911 before entering Kavanaugh's house with a gun. What a difference it would have been had he killed Kavanaugh. That would have taken all the air out of the Jan 6th extravaganza wouldn't it?

"Dersh" -

Plus the continual defense is mind boggling.  

As always.

You and others dodged a bullet the other day when a madman decided to call 911 before entering Kavanaugh's house with a gun. What a difference it would have been had he killed Kavanaugh. That would have taken all the air out of the Jan 6th extravaganza wouldn't it?

Do you recognize that you're equating the Jan. 6th actions of Trump supporters with the actions of a madman?

Did 'you and yours dodge a bullet' because Trump supporters failed to get their hands on Pence or Pelosi or any of the other elected officials participating that day?  

Really?

Yeah, Vic, really.

It really is true that a single speech using incendiary language by the Senate Majority leader does not compare in scale to months of incendiary language (and actions) by the president of the United States.

Both are wrong, but are at different scales.   Just like stealing a car and a multi-month serial robbing of banks are both wrong but at different scales.

But it's also true that Schumer gave several speeches on the floor of the Senate where he had incendiary language against the Supreme Court.  And we have had numerous politicians use incendiary language in their speeches, this is really nothing new.  Trump is a blowhard who doesn't know when to shut his mouth and who has no filter it seems, but to try to excuse what other politicians do seems too partisan.  They all do it, it's nothing new.  This is what politics has devolved to I'm afraid.

Typically the more right someone is the more they think another is a 'leftist'.

everyone to the left of the remaining trumpsters is a leftist...

"You might want to follow the advice."

I wonder what this means?  Coming from someone who is never correct and does nothing but project, deflect, and deny.

"Dersh" - 

I don’t feel like typing out his long ass name. Sue me.

Plus the continual defense is mind boggling.

Defense of what? What is it you think I’m defending? I have repeatedly condemned the whole “stop the steal” movement.

You have a right to your opinion that Trump committed no crimes. Many legal experts with national reputations disagree. 

You have a right to your opinion that Trump committed no crimes.

You take too much from my comments. I don’t have an opinion about whether or not Trump committed any crimes at all. I am open to the idea that he did. That’s why I think DOJ should be investigating. The select committee cannot answer the question. Therefore, the select committee is purely political.

What I do say is that when people present specific evidence - e.g. Trump made a speech and said something like “fight like hell” - that the evidence does not support the accusation that he committed a specific crime (like incitement).

Many legal experts with national reputations disagree. 

Totally irrelevant. This whole seed is about the opinion of a legal expert with a national reputation and you don’t have any problem disagreeing with him.

[ Deleted ]

I'll go to the true legal scholars (per John, those with a national reputation) not this trumpturd ass kissing scumbag "Dersh" [ Deleted ]

The steaming pile of shit was inciting his rabid base ever since he lost.

It’s my time and I’ll spend it how I wish. If this is something you really care about, I think you need to take a long, hard look at your life.

not this trumpturd ass kissing scumbag "Dersh"

If you think he likes Trump, then you don’t know anything about him.

you and your endless defense of that steaming pile of shit . .

I have already challenged you to define what I defended, but you clearly can’t say. Maybe try not lying about my comments, ok?

For some reason I was thinking about the Manson trials. I need to go back and see what was said at trial. As we all know Manson was convicted of murder and conspiracy yet according to some, he never himself committed the murders.

I was too young back then so I don't remember it as it happened. I don't remember really any testimony or what was specifically said at trial. 

Point being, I guess, is that they got him on conspiracy. I don't remember how or if they actually proved it or the jury was just so emotional that he was going to be convicted anyway, or if the followers admitted it, etc.

The documentaries I have seen basically just talk about him and his life. I guess I can/should do a little research about the trial.

I know they are two different things yet to me the same basic premise.

"It’s my time and I’ll spend it how I wish."

Who said otherwise?

All the rest of your nonsense

You have a right to your opinion that Trump committed no crimes. Many legal experts with national reputations disagree. 

You've been telling us for years that he committed crimes.

We have a DOJ run by a Democratic administration.  The House and Senate are under Democratic Party control.  

If he has committed crimes, why have they not charged him?  Are they going to charge him?  When can we expect that?  They've been in control for a year and a half.   

It really is true that a single speech using incendiary language by the Senate Majority leader does not compare in scale to months of incendiary language (and actions) by the president of the United States.

Nicholas John Roske proved you wrong.

You have a right to your opinion that Trump committed no crimes. Many legal experts with national reputations disagree. 

Well hurry up and convict him of something. We are on the same page: Neither of us want him running again.

[Deleted]

Do you accept the fact that the sitting Majority leader of the US Senate has a powerful podium and carries great influence over tens of millions of Americans?   That his suggestions are believed at face value?    That his comments are in fact leading the charge to have Supreme Court Justices murdered?

His words were much worse than anything  Trump said. 

Months of the president of the United States, with the authority and platform that comes with that office, arguing that the US system is rigged (corrupt) and that tens of millions of voters are disenfranchised is at a scale that dwarfs a single speech.

Amazing watching some of you grasp at straws trying to defend Trump.

“Jan. 6 committee's public hearing on Thursday night was ''not a fair proceeding'' in that it was ''one-sided'' and ''unethical.''”

just like the bogus russia russia russia hearings and the bs impeachments.

One sided? What other side would you present?

A team of Trump sycophants attempting to defend Trump.   Thus far, they would have to do what Dershowitz is doing ... pointing out that not every word from Trump was triggering aggression ... that he did on occasion call for peace.    They would also try to explain away what Trump really meant and argue that Trump really, truly, honestly believes that the system is rigged.  

Kind of like the crap we read here from Trump supporters.

I am getting sick of the words have no consequences thing. Some act like people can say whatever they want and should have zero accountability.

“One sided? What other side would you present?”

How about presenting both sides? This is nothing more than a team of anti trump sycophants who jerk off to cnn and msnbc while parroting those extremely partisan thoughts while chastising others for being partisan.

How is there a both sides? The people were caught on tape and we all know what they did.

There is only one real side to what happened. The rest is obfuscation. 

Oh a gunman shot up a church...let's hear both sides.....Yeah right.

How about presenting both sides?

Where would the 'other side' come from? The testimony of Trump, Pence, Eastman, Meadows, Clark, Bannon, McCarthy, Jordan, Giuliani? 

What other side would you present?

I would present the side that even though the idea of a stolen election is ridiculous, Trump and his people pursued the matter through legal means, appealing to courts and government officials. Even the thing they wanted Pence and Congress to do on January 6 was rooted in the Constitution. 

Then the president gave a speech urging people to march in support of their cause. It doesn’t matter if you or I think their cause was absurd. They are allowed to advocate for it. And in that speech, the president told the crowd to be peaceful.

All of that are facts supporting a very different narrative than the one that says Trump was part of a conspiracy to violently overthrow the government.

After all that we have seen, how could you say he didn't? From calling people and telling them to find votes to telling the people to fight like hell.

From people stealing voting machine hard drives to people trying to put fake electors in place, to trying to get states to overturn their results on no evidence at all.

The excuse that he said to go in peace is just that. He continues to this day to say the election was fraudulent.

At what point in time does the main character involved in all this have to take any responsibility?

[Deleted]

removed for context

I would present the side that even though the idea of a stolen election is ridiculous, Trump and his people pursued the matter through legal means, appealing to courts and government officials. Even the thing they wanted Pence and Congress to do on January 6 was rooted in the Constitution. 

Attempting to coerce officials to find votes is not a legal method.   Attempting to suborn Pence to send certified votes of select states back so that they would not be counted and thus give Trump the win is NOT rooted in the CotUS unless one ascribes to the notion that any bizarre interpretation of the CotUS is defacto constitutional.

Then the president gave a speech urging people to march in support of their cause. It doesn’t matter if you or I think their cause was absurd. They are allowed to advocate for it. And in that speech, the president told the crowd to be peaceful.

In that very speech he told his supporters to march on the Capitol and that the reason for the march was  "... because you'll never take back our country with weakness;  you have to show strength, you have to be strong".   The fact that he made contrary comments of being peaceful does not remove the fact that he ALSO used words that would incite his supporters such as telling them the reason for marching on the Capitol is to take back our country with strength in response to their votes being disenfranchised by a rigged system.

Prior to that speech, he had spend months engaging in incendiary language that falsely portrayed the US electoral system as rigged / fraudulent and claiming that Biden was not the duly elected president-elect.

All of that are facts supporting a very different narrative than the one that says Trump was part of a conspiracy to violently overthrow the government.

Trump's defense is weak ... basically grasping as straws.

 would present the side that even though the idea of a stolen election is ridiculous, Trump and his people pursued the matter through legal means, appealing to courts and government officials. Even the thing they wanted Pence and Congress to do on January 6 was rooted in the Constitution.

very true.  All of the claims of his criminality are long on conclusion and short on evidence as to which specific statute he supposedly violated and factual support for each element therein. 

There's zero evidence I've seen that he planned or coordinated any of the violence at the Capitol, and no sane person can claim his public statements rise to the level of incitement.

That the electoral count Act was a mess was well documented prior to the election by liberal and conservative legal scholars alike.  His interpretation of the Vice President's powers are not criminal, any more than someone advocating  that Joe Biden  issue  executive orders that are likely illegal is a criminal. 

Saying what you said, how could you turn around and say Schumer is guilty of inciting violence? How can fox news?

Why is it a real thing for some people and not others?

What is the actual purpose of denying Trump's guilt?  Is it a game? Recent reports indicate the likelihood of trump being indicted in Georgia. The crime being his asking the Sec Of State there to find 11,000 votes. 

People with a shred of common sense see Trump's corruption in the asking. 

What is the reason for defense of this ? Just politics? 

Trump's defenders about all of this seem more interested in splitting hairs than in reaching the obvious conclusion - Trump does not belong in a prominent position in American life. 

how could you turn around and say Schumer is guilty of inciting violence? How can fox news?

First, I don't think Schumer would be legally guilty of inciting violence if Kavanaugh had been assassinated.  Morally is another question..  

Trump didn't incite anyone to commit a violent act. Telling a crowd to protest "peacefully and patriotically" is the exact opposite of  incitement.  If he had told the crowd, a la Schumer, to go to Capitol Hill and see that Congress reaps the whirlwind, its a lot closer case. 

But again, it's funny how you can turn around and say Trump is guilty but Schumer is not. Democrats certainly don't have a problem keeping him as a leader of their party. 

Image credit (alone) read article here: dailykos

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CB commentary:

The conspiracy aspect has not been laid before the public. What we do know is this:

 1. The capitol ("the People's House) was invaded and overran.

 2. The duties and responsibilities of the VP to certify an election was halted and endanger of completion.

 3. The president was tweeting incendiary rhetoric against his VP during the proceedings.

 4. Congressional leaders on both sides were under threat as well as siezure.

 5. Some ritoters demonstrated intent to hang the VP when 'captured' or if surrendered.

 6.  The capitol building was 'sacked.'

 7.  Deaths of capitol staff were caused.

 8.  Death of an insurrectionist occurred.

 9.  The president invited people to come to the "wild" even at the White House that would end up at the Capitol where VP Pence was officially   certifying the election results for candidate Joe Biden, the newly elected president. (Against the wishes of Donald J. Trump.)

10. Official government documents and secure stations were tampered with and unlawfully removed from their owners and places.

Did I get this right, Tacos? Is it circumstantial or opinion enough for you to see Trump's involvement?

Trump didn't incite anyone to commit a violent act.

time

businessinsider

mashable

That's just a few...

hat is the actual purpose of denying Trump's guilt?

I don't think he committed a crime. 

The crime being his asking the Sec Of State there to find 11,000 vote

If you read the entire call, you'd see how ridiculous this is.  He told him they had evidence that he won the state by "many times" the 11,000 votes and discussed category after category of fraudulent votes that were wrongly counted.  He claimed, repeatedly,  to have won by hundreds of thousands of votes, but as he said it only matters that he won by one.  Which is undeniable. There's no threats. He didn't ask him to lie.  It's not a crime to admit your goal is to win an election. 

washingtonpost

What is the reason for defense of this ? Just politics? 

Because the danger of criminalizing non criminal political activity is off the charts to a Republic. 

- Trump does not belong in a prominent position in American li

I agree.  But we are a country of laws, not emotion. 

 None of your links  involve January 6th and one of your examples is of Trump talking the day after someone was punched. Unless you credit Trump with the power of manipulating time to incite someone in the past to act , it's by definition not incitement . 

One sided? What other side would you present?

After 15 months of collecting hundreds of thousands of pages of data, it is a mathematical impossibility that none of it reflects favorably upon Trump. 

Some of it does, like the fact he used the words "peaceful and patriotic" when calling for protests.  There is undoubtedly more.  How much, we'll never know.

Dershowitz is pointing out that information that would be favorable to Trump is already being intentionally filtered out of the set of evidence being presented.  Most thinking people don't expect we'll see even a tiny amount of that data. 

Most people also recognize that the party in power is controlling the proceedings completely and has much to gain through an uninterrupted public flogging of their most recent opponent.

Dershowitz also points out that anything this obviously and completely partisan will struggle to achieve any credibility.  He's not wrong.

Attempting to coerce officials

“Coercion” has a legal definition and it’s usually pretty consistent across various state and federal laws. It generally means to employ threats or intimidation to force someone to do a thing they don’t want to do or prevent them from doing a thing they have a legal right to do.

Asking someone over and over to do a thing is not coercion. Doing it with a lot of rhetoric is not coercion. You need real evidence of actual, legal coercion if you want people to accept that Trump actually employed this tactic.

Attempting to suborn Pence to send certified votes of select states back so that they would not be counted and thus give Trump the win is NOT rooted in the CotUS unless one ascribes to the notion that any bizarre interpretation of the CotUS is defacto constitutional.

The Supreme Court would have almost nothing to do if reasonable people didn’t constantly disagree about what the Constitution allows. Pursuing something you think is constitutional is not criminal, even if you end up losing in the courts.

In that very speech he told his supporters to march on the Capitol and that the reason for the march was  "... because you'll never take back our country with weakness;  you have to show strength, you have to be strong".

Classic political rhetoric. Nothing in there about breaking through barriers, attacking cops, climbing walls, busting through doors, or committing violence of any kind.

The fact that he made contrary comments of being peaceful

There is no contradiction. Do you seriously think a person can’t be both strong and peaceful?

words that would incite his supporters such as telling them the reason for marching on the Capitol is to take back our country with strength in response to their votes being disenfranchised by a rigged system.

Joe Biden literally campaigned by saying “it’s time we take back this country.” Democrats talk about disenfranchisement constantly. They accused several states of disenfranchising voters by requiring ID or changing a wide variety of regulations related to voting. And a lot of times, those accusations were pretty much bullshit. All that has happened just within the last year. You can’t take the same or remarkably similar behavior and excuse it in some people while calling it treason for someone else.

This is a legal analysis, not a moral one. That is the context of Dersh’s comments. I still hold Trump morally responsible for contributing to the violence on January 6. But the accusations that he committed crimes while doing it do not hold up under scrutiny.

I responded to your claim:

Trump didn't incite anyone to commit a violent act.

A federal judge has already given the opinion that Trump and Eastman committed crimes related to the electoral count plot. 

Where did you get your law degree? 

If you read the entire call, you'd see how ridiculous this is.  He told him they had evidence that he won the state by "many times" the 11,000 votes and discussed category after category of fraudulent votes that were wrongly counted.  He claimed, repeatedly,  to have won by hundreds of thousands of votes, but as he said it only matters that he won by one.  Which is undeniable. There's no threats. He didn't ask him to lie.  It's not a crime to admit your goal is to win an election. 

If Trump had "evidence" it would have come out long ago. Do you normally take the word of pathological liars? 

I believe he did threaten Raffensperger politically, and in fact has called Raffensperger names and endorsed his opponent. Not because Raffensperger didnt do his job properly, but because he did. 

After all that we have seen, how could you say he didn't?

He just told you.

From calling people and telling them to find votes to telling the people to fight like hell.

If what he did was illegal, they should charge him with a crime (or number of crimes).  But they haven't.

From people stealing voting machine hard drives to people trying to put fake electors in place, to trying to get states to overturn their results on no evidence at all.

He behaved scandalously.  No question.  But we really didn't need a whole commission to tell us that, did we?

What laws did he break?  Serious question.  As you know, I don't care for the man.  I frankly would not be disappointed at all to see him go to prison.  So if he's broken a law, (or several) let's hear about it.

The excuse that he said to go in peace is just that.

Regardless of whether you accept that piece of evidence or consider it an "excuse", it is significant and should not be intentionally removed from the data presented.

He continues to this day to say the election was fraudulent.

As ridiculous an assertion as that is, what law prohibits him from saying it?

At what point in time does the main character involved in all this have to take any responsibility?

When he actually breaks a law.  If he's done that, then let's charge him and get the fuck on with it.  If he hasn't, it's time to move on.

If the law only works for the privileged, then it is based on emotion-eh?

Dershowitz is full of shit. Again, the committee is preparing the grounds for their further 'planting' of their theory of the case. Dershowitz, rather cleverly like a fox, set on his hunches and waited for this opening where he could throw an unnecessary 'Foul!' from the stadium nose-bleed seats. This 'call' is premature at best. He has not heard the presentation in full which will span five more events I am told.

But, that point out Dershowitz's bias. The pig.

I never said Schumer was guilty or not. I don't like when any of them do it. It is in no way necessary. 

At some point in time people will have to be held responsible for their actions.

It is a fools errand to say people can spout whatever shitty rhetoric they want and have no repercussions.

What is the actual purpose of denying Trump's guilt?

What is the actual purpose of conducting this hearing instead of charging him in a criminal court?

  Is it a game?

It certainly looks that way, yes.  Otherwise we'd have seen criminal charges 6 months ago.

Recent reports indicate the likelihood of trump being indicted in Georgia. The crime being his asking the Sec Of State there to find 11,000 votes. 

Then why are we televising this instead of that? 

People with a shred of common sense see Trump's corruption in the asking.

Those same people are wondering where the charges are.  

Trump does not belong in a prominent position in American life. 

Pelosi disagrees with you.  She's doing everything she can to make him relevant, most probably because she needs a supervillain to run against.

What is the actual purpose of conducting this hearing instead of charging him in a criminal court?

Informing the American public. 

All Dershowitz is saying is free speech reins supreme.

Contrary to popular belief, speech can have consequences.

Informing the American public.

The American public would be much more fully informed if he were charged.   If he were charged, this would actually matter.

Trump had "evidence" it would have come out long ago. Do you normally take the word of pathological liars? 

What are you talking about?  Just because Trump was wrong doesn't mean he committed a crime.  Lying (if he was lying, good luck proving Trump believed he lost)  isn't a crime.  

 believe he did threaten Raffensperger politically, and in fact has called Raffensperger names and endorsed his opponent.

How is calling someone names and endorsing political opponents possibly a crime? Is that a road you want to go down? Endorsing one member of a party over another is a crime?!

Informing the American public. 

That's not the role of our Court system. You are asking the DOJ to act illegally.  Under your standard, you should go to jail. 

All Dershowitz is saying is free speech reins supreme. Contrary to popular belief, speech can have consequences.

And what consequences are we expecting?  Other than a political boost for the party in power as we approach midterm elections?

It is awfully convenient timing, don't you think?

Well, why won't you slow down and wait for the panel to complete its presentation? Why try to anticipate what they will or will not 'result'? It's a serious set of questions.

So we should just look the other way when someone tells a state to find the votes or any other thing he did.

We should just let anyone say whatever the fuck they want. Even if people respond and do things, not my fault.

I don't care whether he said go in peace or not. It is in no way significant within his over all rhetoric.

You actually think this would give them a boost? I don't.

Again, you dally in rhetorical nonsense. It is the job of congress to investigate the 'ramsacking' of its House and Senate above or equal to all other priorities. It's just boorish of you stand around (here) yelling: "Nay-nay-nay!"

Asking someone over and over to do a thing is not coercion. Doing it with a lot of rhetoric is not coercion. You need real evidence of actual, legal coercion if you want people to accept that Trump actually employed this tactic.

Trump did a hard sell right off the bat to Raffensperger.   When Raffensperger indicated that he disagreed, Trump included this:

Brad. You know I mean, having the correct — the people of Georgia are angry. And these numbers are going to be repeated on Monday night. Along with others that we're going to have by that time which are much more substantial even. And the people of Georgia are angry, the people of the country are angry. And there's nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you've recalculated. 

...

I mean, look. Brad. We have a new tape that we're going to release. It's devastating . And by the way, that one event, that one event is much more than the 11,000 votes that we're talking about. It's uh, you know. That one event was a disaster. And it's just, you know, but it was, it was something, it can't be disputed. And again we have a version that you haven't seen but it's magnified. It's magnified and you can see everything. For some reason they put it in three times, each ballot, and I don't know why. I don't know why three times. Why not five times, right? Go ahead.

...

I don't even know why you have a side, because you should want to have an accurate election. And you're a Republican.

...

I can't imagine you're allowed to do harvesting, I guess, in that agreement. That agreement is a disaster for this country. But she got you somehow to sign that thing and she has outsmarted you at every step .   And I hate to imagine what's going to happen on Monday or Tuesday, but it's very scary to people.

...

Brad, whether you know it or not, they're laughing at you and you've taken a state that's a Republican state, and you've made it almost impossible for a Republican to win because of cheating, because they cheated like nobody's ever cheated before. 

...

And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. 

...

And you can't let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I'm notifying you that you're letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

...

It was much more criminal than that. But it's a big problem in Georgia and it's not a problem that's going away. I mean, you know, it's not a problem that's going away .

...

And that is criminal . You know, that's criminal. OK. That's another criminal , that's another of the many criminal events, many criminal events here.

Oh, I don't know, look Brad. I got to get ... I have to find 12,000 votes and I have them times a lot. And therefore, I won the state. That's before we go to the next step, which is in the process of right now. You know, and I watched you this morning and you said, uh, well, there was no criminality .

But I mean, all of this stuff is very dangerous stuff. When you talk about no criminality, I think it's very dangerous for you to say that.

...

So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break. 

...

And every single ballot went to Biden, and you didn't know that, but, now you know it. So tell me, Brad, what are we going to do?  

...

Because you guys are so wrong. And you treated this. You treated the population of Georgia so badly. You, between you and your governor, who was down at 21, he was down 21 points. And like a schmuck, I endorsed him and he got elected, but I will tell you, he is a disaster.

And he knows, I can't imagine that people are so angry in Georgia, I can't imagine he's ever getting elected again I'll tell you that much right now. But why wouldn't you want to find the right answer, Brad, instead of keep saying that the numbers are right? Cause those numbers are so wrong?

...

Well, you have to. Well, under the law you're not allowed to give faulty election results, OK? You're not allowed to do that. And that's what you done. This is a faulty election result. And honestly, this should go very fast. You should meet tomorrow because you have a big election coming up and because of what you've done to the president — you know, the people of Georgia know that this was a scam. And because of what you've done to the president, a lot of people aren't going out to vote and a lot of Republicans are going to vote negative because they hate what you did to the president. Okay? T hey hate it. And they're going to vote.

...

But you're allowed to have a phony election? You're allowed to have a phony election right? 

...

That's the way it is. I would like you ... for the attorneys ... I'd like you to perhaps meet with Ryan ideally tomorrow, because I think we should come to a resolution of this before the election. Otherwise you're going to have people just not voting. They don't want to vote. They hate the state, they hate the governor and they hate the secretary of state. I will tell you that right now. 

cnn

The Godfather was more subtle when he engaged in intimidation to coerce others to do his bidding.

If you read the transcript, I would be surprised if you did not conclude that this meeting was a hard-sell, strong-arm attempt by Trump which included clear threats.   Trump was telling Raffensperger that he was engaging in a criminal activity and that he (Trump) will continue to release devastating information so Raffensperger better get things straightened up now.

It would be one thing if this was coming from a flunky.   This is directly out of the mouth of the sitting PotUS.

The "American" public will be better and more solidly informed after this presentation. Incidentally, you know that this panel's goal is to present the evidence of what happened on January 6, 2021 and if DOJ finds cause it will charge.

So why is your 'thing' (suddenly) let's all rush to "charging"? Can it be more obvious that this is RIGHT-Wing bull talking point activity?

John, it's a set-up. As usual, the Right on NT has upped the ante (don't miss it everybody),now it is not that the insurrection did not happen; not that Donald was somehow and way involved, but. . . show me "the Charges."  - No charges, no foul.

The subtlety with these conservatives is remarkable. They are intelligent at tomfoolery. Always dodgy. Always calculating their next 'move.'

He knows you're right. The same yahoos want to crucify the one the name-call, "Let's go Brandon" for every opportunistic utterance their damage control team can spot. If you thinking you know what is happening here, Ender, go with your hunch!

I think they are working on an angle that they all somehow colluded beforehand. With the proudboys and the oathkeepers etc.

A who knew what kind of thing.

You may be right, it does kind of seem that way from the teasers given out for the upcoming seven sessions.  I think that will be a hard thing to prove, kind of like intent also.  Just because someone talked with someone does not by itself prove collusion.  I still think the best outcome from this is that Trump decides he will not run in 24.  We'll have to wait and see but I doubt if criminal charges against Trump will come from this.  

The subtlety with these conservatives is remarkable. They are intelligent at tomfoolery. Always dodgy. Always calculating their next 'move.'

I would call it jackassery myself. 

Damn TiG is on it, deep! I am thrilled and excited that you pulled this out in this fashion.

It is Trump, the 'cut-throat' businessman using his manipulation 'tools' on the Georgia Secretary of State and Raffensperger, a republican, clearly can handle being 'massaged' and then 'plummeted' took the pounding and taped it all. When I heard this tape, I knew exactly what it was: the 'good old boy' approach. We, blacks and minorities, have been bested time and time again by kept secret discussions and engagements by authorities stealing from us.

Thank God, Raffensperger and a few others make it plain that there are some genuine good people overall in the GOP yet.

That maybe the best we can as for: Donald Trump just go away! We're tired of losing good people to your utter irreconcilable, uncompromising, unsportmanslike, bull patty. JUST GET LOST and enjoy 'shady Mara' or whereever the private sector will take you.

To me the attempted coercion is clear.   Of course Trump did not come right out and threaten Raffensperger, that is never how it is done unless the operative is a complete moron.   Threats are subtle such as "I am going to release information that will damage you politically" without saying those exact words.

The Supreme Court would have almost nothing to do if reasonable people didn’t constantly disagree about what the Constitution allows.

Thus I am to believe that you, Tacos!, see no problem with Pence refusing to accept votes from select states so that Trump would win by the states that were accepted?   You consider that a sound interpretation of the CotUS?

Further, do you see nothing wrong, in a legal or constitutional sense, for the PotUS to bully Pence both privately and with public humiliation to intentionally engage in this unconstitutional act?

Classic political rhetoric. Nothing in there about breaking through barriers, attacking cops, climbing walls, busting through doors, or committing violence of any kind.

Did you expect such clear statements???   If you are going to give Trump the benefit of every doubt unless he basically admits something in blatantly candid language then I can predict all of your comments in the matter.   Further, nobody has suggested that Trump told his supporters to be violent.   That is not the allegation.   The allegation is that he incensed / motivated his supporters with his Big Lie and that the violence was a consequence of the narrative that Trump had pursued for months.

There is no contradiction. Do you seriously think a person can’t be both strong and peaceful?

Of course that is possible.   But the possibility is not the point.   The point is that Trump had created a narrative that our electoral system is corrupt and that it was rigged to disenfranchise the votes of his supporters.   He stated this repeatedly and often and engaged in all sorts of behavior pursuant to this.   He put on a grand show where the key purpose was to convince as many people as possible that he did not lose and his tactic was to trash the US electoral system and anything else or anyone else that stood in his way.

This is a legal analysis, not a moral one. That is the context of Dersh’s comments. I still hold Trump morally responsible for contributing to the violence on January 6. But the accusations that he committed crimes while doing it do not hold up under scrutiny.

You did read my comments to understand that I have noted that Dershowitz is technically (legally) correct.

I doubt it too.

The American public would be much more fully informed if he were charged.   If he were charged, this would actually matter.

I agree.   But this is what we have now.

Is it circumstantial or opinion enough for you to see Trump's involvement?

I haven’t said Trump isn’t involved. But “involved” ≠ criminal.

A federal judge has already given the opinion that Trump and Eastman committed crimes related to the electoral count plot. 

I think there are close to 2000 federal judges and they all have opinions. Reasonable people disagree on legal matters every day.

Where did you get your law degree?

A well-ranked school in California.

If you read the transcript, I would be surprised if you did not conclude that this meeting was a hard-sell, strong-arm attempt by Trump which included clear threats.

Ok, I read the transcript. I agree it’s a hard sell, but so what? Everything politicians do is a hard sell. I don’t, however, see the clear threats you mention. If you mean Trump talking about releasing evidence of what he says is criminal activity, that can’t be a criminal threat on the part of Trump unless it’s specifically tied to the action he seeks, i.e. it’s blackmail. But I don’t see him make that connection in the transcript you have here. Trump says he’s going to release it. He doesn’t say he’ll refrain from doing that if Raffensperger gives him what he wants. 

I would say Trump is psycho, but I don’t see the criminal behavior.

We will never see an overt threat;  the threat will always be subtle and inferred unless the person making the threat is a fool.   That is why I made mention of 'The Godfather'.   

To me the context of the PotUS spending an hour to tell Raffensperger repeatedly that he has failed and that the public will be informed of his criminal (per Trump) incompetence is a clear threat.   And to add to that we have the fact that Trump is known for getting even with those who cross him (in this case by not going along with his scheme to find votes).    

Contrast this hour long session with Trump merely informing Raffensperger of a problem and asking him to investigate.    That should provide a good comparison of coercion vs. suggestion.

I would say Trump is psycho, but I don’t see the criminal behavior.

Criminal, unconstitutional, etc. is something that is normally adjudicated.   I think what Trump did during the Big Lie is an abuse of the authority of the office he held and hints at treason, but we do not get to make those calls.   I do hope that Trump is held accountable for what he did but based on history that does not seem to happen as it should.

You consider that a sound interpretation of the CotUS?

No, I don’t. I don’t think Pence has the authority to do what people wanted him to do. I think that would require a tortured reading.

I think Pence figured that out, too. But let’s not pretend it was obvious. It’s not like this comes up a lot. And as I think I have said in multiple places now, reasonable people disagree all the time on what the Constitution allows. Being dead wrong about the law is not a crime.

Further, do you see nothing wrong, in a legal or constitutional sense, for the PotUS to bully Pence both privately and with public humiliation to intentionally engage in this unconstitutional act?

I confess I can’t think of a federal statute that is violated when the president politically bullies or humiliates the VP. In America, everyone - even the president - has the freedom to be a dick.

Did you expect such clear statements??? 

Yep. When it comes to criminal prosecutions, I subscribe to the usual high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The allegation is that he incensed / motivated his supporters with his Big Lie and that the violence was a consequence of the narrative that Trump had pursued for months.

Well, I think that’s the only way a case can be made here. However, in a real case, you don’t get to just lay out the allegations, exclude exculpatory evidence, and not allow the defendant every opportunity to cross examine witnesses, rebut testimony, impeach evidence, and on and on.

It all depends on what you’re trying to achieve here. If it’s to convince people that Trump shouldn’t be president, I would suggest Mission Accomplished, since he already lost. Unfortunately, if you want exclude the possibility of him trying again, the current office holder isn’t helping a lot. I think these televised hearings are about overcoming that little problem. That would be fine if we were talking about political ads. What makes my skin crawl is that Congress is doing it under the color of their authority and that’s kinda slimy, even if I sympathize with the sentiment.

Now, if we could convict him of sedition in an actual court, then pursuant to the 14th Amendment, he would be ineligible for the office. All of these different procedures have different standards of proof. That’s just how the system works.

You did read my comments to understand that I have noted that Dershowitz is technically (legally) correct.

Yeah. And I get that it pisses people off, but like Professor Dershowitz, I’m a big believer in our system and I want to give it the full chance to do its job in the right way.

Informing the American public. 

Lying their fucking asses off in a hopeless attempt to save themselves from the crushing they are going to receive at midterms.

A well-ranked school in California.

Are you in fact an attorney Tacos!?

I am. I wish I could say it makes me an expert on all things Trump, but we didn’t cover this brand of lunacy in law school.

Being dead wrong about the law is not a crime.

Are you sure about that?    If Trump suborned his V.P. to engage in an unconstitutional act (one that was also clearly dishonest) do you think the "I must have misunderstood the CotUS" defense would work?  

I confess I can’t think of a federal statute that is violated when the president politically bullies or humiliates the VP. In America, everyone - even the president - has the freedom to be a dick.

I think you slightly misunderstood my point here.   It is not the bullying that would be a violation but rather the fact that Trump used tactics (bullying, humiliation) in an attempt to force Pence to engage in an unconstitutional act.

Yep. When it comes to criminal prosecutions, I subscribe to the usual high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

A fine standard.   But if you demand the equivalent of a confession to achieve this level of proof then many villains would walk free.

Well, I think that’s the only way a case can be made here. 

Clearly this is not intended to be a trial.   The intent is to convince the public that Trump did indeed abuse the authority of his office while trying to fraudulently steal the election.   And this clearly partisan and biased group will need to rely upon clear and convincing evidence to persuade the public.   I think they got off to a fine start.

Now, if we could convict him of sedition in an actual court, then pursuant to the 14th Amendment, he would be ineligible for the office. All of these different procedures have different standards of proof. That’s just how the system works.

Funny how some in the aristocracy are able to repeatedly skirt prosecution.

Are you sure about that?

Of course. If it were otherwise, everyone who ever lost in the SCOTUS would go to jail. 

If Trump suborned his V.P. to engage in an unconstitutional act (one that was also clearly dishonest) do you think the "I must have misunderstood the CotUS" defense would work?  

It would have to be established law for it to be a crime. I don’t think the Court has ruled on this kind of thing. (Even then, I’m sure they would find some excuse.)

Like I said, it doesn’t come up a lot. We’ve had members of Congress object to electors before. I don’t think it would ever amount to anything, and states are allowed to choose their own electors. It’s not up to Congress. So it seems unconstitutional, but they do it anyway.

As for being dishonest. I mean, he’s a politician. The line of dishonest politicians is loooooong.

It is not the bullying that would be a violation but rather the fact that Trump used tactics (bullying, humiliation) in an attempt to force Pence to engage in an unconstitutional act.

My opinion is that it’s just not the kind of thing that satisfies whatever the elements of coercion or force are going to be. I’m sure there’s some caselaw, but everything becomes a special case when you’re talking about the president, so who knows?

But if you demand the equivalent of a confession to achieve this level of proof then many villains would walk free.

I hear you, but I don’t think those are our only two choices. As you indicate, there is nothing wrong with a totality of circumstances approach. But explicit statements are a lot easier.

Funny how some in the aristocracy are able to repeatedly skirt prosecution.

I think part of the problem (a very minor part probably, but one I notice) is that these people accuse each other of treason and sedition all the time these days. It no longer means anything.

But, at this stage of the hearing, I, we, are not talking about criminality.

We're talking about a revealing of findings and those responsible agents, parties, and groups. Right?

Dershowitz is in manifested error to insert himself (a criminal law defense attorney) and introduce and advocate for lack of criminality prematurely.

This panel is not equipped by law to charge anybody with a crime, right?

Okay, Georgia Secretary of State vs President Donald Trump scenario. Isn't what Donald Trump doing an attempt at a quid pro quo? Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours?

So we should just look the other way when someone tells a state to find the votes or any other thing he did.

Why would you pretend somebody said/thinks/implied some utterly ridiculous shite that they've never given even the slightest indication they believe?  Why do you do that?

We should just let anyone say whatever the fuck they want.

If they're not breaking a law, yes.  That's how it works here in America.

Even if people respond and do things, not my fault.

We have laws governing this.  I'm sure you're aware.  

I'm also very sure you're smart enough to recognize that if they had evidence to suggest Trump had broken those laws, charges would probably have been filed already.

I don't care whether he said go in peace or not. It is in no way significant within his over all rhetoric.

What you or I "care" about really doesn't matter.  We are a nation of laws.  If he broke one, they should charge him and get the fuck on with it.  If he didn't they should shut the fuck up and move on.

You actually think this would give them a boost? I don't.

I think they're desperate and don't have any other ideas. 

They have to do something to distract from the economic issues, which are likely to get worse before the election.  

I think Pence figured that out, too. But let’s not pretend it was obvious. It’s not like this comes up a lot. And as I think I have said in multiple places now, reasonable people disagree all the time on what the Constitution allows. Being dead wrong about the law is not a crime.

You're making excuses for a cavalier fool named Trump who 'stampedes' in a China shop as a matter of routine. The president was exerting strongman tactics against his VP through verbal abuse in public.  He was 'outing' his subordinate. This can not be "okay" with anybody who lives by acceptable standards of U.S. decorum. So stop mimicking Trump as he looks for inventive ways to 'throttle' and mismanagement the spirit in the rule of law.

It is not acceptable, or expected, that one should challenge and test every 'tittle' in the legal realm to determine that a wrong has been committed. Taco, is that is the case then the legal system would fail. And you certainly know that can never be allowed to happen.

BTW, that is precisely what Trump is indirectly after: A COLLAPSE OF THE U.S. SYSTEM OF LAW.

So what has to happen: Judges have to "see the man" attempting to thwart justice and call him out (Trump) right where he 'stands' and tell him he will not destroy one of the most approved and critical-thinking systems in the world by demanding that every instance of a violation be dotted and "t's" capitalized before he falls under the control of a justice system!

I confess I can’t think of a federal statute that is violated when the president politically bullies or humiliates the VP. In America, everyone - even the president - has the freedom to be a dick.

This was more than being a dick. A 'dick' would call and curse the Georgia SEC of State out for not seeing to the win. This was a sitting president using pressure tactics to demand a sitting Secretary of States outright lie and falsify government proceedings at threat of charging him for a crime he did not commit at the federal level.

Incidentally, now we know for a fact, AG Barr had told that fool Donald he officially lost the election (in Georgia and beyond) early on.

Well, I think that’s the only way a case can be made here. However, in a real case, you don’t get to just lay out the allegations, exclude exculpatory evidence, and not allow the defendant every opportunity to cross examine witnesses, rebut testimony, impeach evidence, and on and on.

The January 6 committee panel is not a trial: there is no sitting judge over the proceedings in attendance. So stop.

It all depends on what you’re trying to achieve here. If it’s to convince people that Trump shouldn’t be president, I would suggest Mission Accomplished, since he already lost. Unfortunately, if you want exclude the possibility of him trying again, the current office holder isn’t helping a lot. I think these televised hearings are about overcoming that little problem. That would be fine if we were talking about political ads. What makes my skin crawl is that Congress is doing it under the color of their authority and that’s kinda slimy, even if I sympathize with the sentiment.

Now you are being petty and selective. Do you forget that republicans did not join the panel, but now wish to judge it from the 'stands'? Why do you abide this stance they took? What/where are your standards of professionalism?

Yeah. And I get that it pisses people off, but like Professor Dershowitz, I’m a big believer in our system and I want to give it the full chance to do its job in the right way.

That's bullshit. People, minorities and "the little guys" poor whites included get stiffed by the "low-profile" justice system everyday and no one can find cause to keep up; but, 'bullocks' tests the system excessively-even when every eye in the world is on him and he can't be found guilty of crimes because of concentric rings of lawyers around him.

This is how the denial, defilement, and destruction of the Rule of Law begins. . . Trump is showing us the courts don't work if forced to 'stand down.'

You would think poor farmers and laborers ("peons") would resent the privileges of affluence where powerful people use the system for their advantage alone.

They just don't get it and that's why the Jan 6th committee is doomed to failure. It looks too much like what it is: a partisan creation designed to prevent Donald Trump from running for office again.

It IS a partisan group that does indeed seek to prevent Trump from running for office.   Yes, Vic, that clearly is a major motivating factor for this group.

Thus they should stick with delivering facts with hard evidence (video) and not engage in much interpretation / speculation.

Of course there are some, (like you I suspect), who will ignore every piece of hard evidence and defend Trump under any circumstances.   There is no reaching people who are shrouded in confirmation bias, but not everyone is like that.

I think the committee will make it quite clear that Trump should never be allowed to hold any public position of power, much less the presidency.   If they can accomplish that then I will applaud their efforts.

Lol .... they hired a former mass media TV executive to “produce” their hearing.    I mean, anyone doesn’t find that hinky has got a real problem.

"Informing the American public."

"Lying their fucking asses off in a hopeless attempt to save themselves from the crushing they are going to receive at midterms."

Nope - that's the republicans/alleged conservatives/gop/gqp/and their supporters.

The  point I made is that the committee is providing the public with evidence.   It is public opinion they seek to influence.    This is not a trial, it is an expose’ for those who have the ability to review evidence and draw conclusions.

Of course the public will decide who to vote for;  stupid question.

I missed the part where Trump was going to do something for him.

The January 6 committee panel is not a trial: there is no sitting judge over the proceedings in attendance. So stop.

I should stop? Stop what? Stop talking? Stop analyzing? Is the committee above my criticism? Corruption wins when unpopular opinions are silenced.

Since it’s not a criminal proceeding, people should stop reacting to it as if the committee were proving crimes.

Gee, maybe we should just get a rope and take him to a tree?

You should probably watch the Jan 6th hearings. Thy might change your mind. 

Do you forget that republicans did not join the panel, but now wish to judge it from the 'stands'? Why do you abide this stance they took?

If you think you spot a contradiction, that is not necessarily the case. I won’t speak for any of them, specifically, but I can easily see a person refusing to take part in a committee they think is corrupt or biased and then later criticizing what that biased committee does. That’s not a contradiction. And if a person is denied a place on the committee, then he is in an even stronger position to criticize.

If memory serves, Republicans and Democrats disagreed on the scope of any investigative committee. I think Republicans wanted too broad of a scope. They wanted a committee to investigate other riots from 2020 in addition to January 6. I think that’s fine, but it would require a different committee.

Thus, the bipartisan committee we needed for January 6 was never formed.

So we ended up with this select committee. Pelosi picked the people who are on this committee and she excluded members that the Republicans suggested - the members who perhaps would have been the most critical. But one man’s troll is another man’s watchdog.

No matter the specific members, Republicans are greatly outnumbered on the committee.

So, it’s just hard to dismiss the fact (unless you deliberately choose to ignore it) that this committee has been partisan and political from the beginning. That doesn’t mean they don’t have some good evidence, but it does mean we are only getting one side of the story, which is Professor D’s thesis.

They just don't get it and that's why the Jan 6th committee is doomed to failure. It looks too much like what it is: a partisan creation designed to prevent Donald Trump from running for office again.

Yes.

Where I suspect you and I may differ is that I would be much happier if Trump never ran for public office again. I would love to see him announce his retirement and drift off into the sunset playing golf by day and banging gold-digging bikini models by night.

However, I don't understand the thought process behind the idea that these hearings have any hope of ending Trump's political career.  Nobody seems to be able to explain that.

Whine-complaint-criticize-minimize-diminish-invalidate. Anything else? Why can't you process any of the information being 'fire-hosed' upon you by this panel?

It IS a partisan group that does indeed seek to prevent Trump from running for office.

How do they hope to do this?

I think the committee will make it quite clear that Trump should never be allowed to hold any public position of power, much less the presidency.   If they can accomplish that then I will applaud their efforts.

I think they will make it quite clear to those people who already believe that.  

How do they hope to do this?

By providing clear hard evidence (especially video) to the viewing public.

I think they will make it quite clear to those people who already believe that.  

They have a chance to influence those on the fence.   They will cause people to talk and spread key points:  new information that has been presented.   They will not convince those who stubbornly hold that Trump won, but nothing would convince people with that mindset.

By providing clear hard evidence (especially video) to the viewing public.

So their big hope here is to win in the court of public opinion?  

That's just feeble, and it's very likely to backfire spectacularly.  Please tell me there is more to their plan than that.  

They will cause people to talk and spread key points:  new information that has been presented.

The Court of Public Opinion? What do they hope will come of that? Other than those who despise Trump will despise him more (if that is even possible)? If that is all they are hoping for then this IS a purely political circus and also a push for votes in the mid terms..........................and they,the DNC, as said elsewhere, ought to be charged for political advertising.

So we ended up with this select committee. Pelosi picked the people who are on this committee and she excluded members that the Republicans suggested - the members who perhaps would have been the most critical. But one man’s troll is another man’s watchdog.

Dershowitz is full of shit and I am about to same the same for some conservatives here! Pelosi (and I mentioned this above-look for it) in her role as Speaker does not have a duty to allow this set of hearing to become a farce, simply because Jim Jordan (your so-called, "watchdog") would not be allowed to 'tank' the hearing with exasperating alternative "analyses" probably stemming from Trump and Trump's team of lawyers.

I can't believe you are really going there. To sit here and imply that justice is simply about 'winning' and damn the cost (to society) or to the standard of truth.

This is bullshit and I am now and will later call it and you out on it.

BTW, the evidence Monday about Trump 'grifting' for donations for voter fraud research or whatever it is (I can't think straight right now I am so pissed at what you stated) is damning. I wonder how you will blow it off and diminish it.

Let me stop here. I can't go on right now.  Some conservatives would not know truth at this point if it bore them a 'new one.'

So their big hope here is to win in the court of public opinion?  

What else do you think they are trying to do?

Please tell me there is more to their plan than that.  

I do not know anything more about their plans than you do.

What do they hope will come of that?

My hypothesis is that they believe this will introduce hard evidence that people will then talk about.   

And yeah Jim this is political.   Obviously.

Where I suspect you and I may differ is that I would be much happier if Trump never ran for public office again.

So would I. I would much prefer the younger man from Florida who has far less baggage.


However, I don't understand the thought process behind the idea that these hearings have any hope of ending Trump's political career.  

I'm not so sure that is what they are up to. I think they are muddying him up some more and they want to run against him.

What else do you think they are trying to do?

I don't know.  I was hoping there was a better plan, and maybe you could see it where I could not.

CLINTON: “You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.”

What facts can be offered to substantiate the ridiculous claim that this is what happened to Trump in 2020?

Read The Full Transcript

I have

One thing I have noticed is that they are focused on calling Republican witnesses.   They have Republicans testifying to establish their facts.

One thing I have noticed is that they are focused on calling Republican witnesses.

I wouldn't suspect that there are many Dem witnesses.

There are plenty of D operatives in the field that they could have called to support allegations.   

I think it is noteworthy that the evidence put forth to the public is coming from direct testimony (on video and voice) of Republicans.

And it is noteworthy that some of the close operatives to Trump are also providing direct testimony.

We, the public learned today (Monday, June 12, 2022) that Donald Trump was told in no uncertain terms by his 'handlers,' 'lieutenants,' cabinet level officials, and campaign manager that he lost the election fair and square. . . through this set of hearings. . . and you see nothing there glaring back at you from the hearing (assuming you listened today) that explains why Donald is unfit to be the president of this country again or leader of the free world? Unbelievable. 

Yet, every time you look at the democrats you see political dead-enders? Surreal.

You want to play this game? Okay, I gave you a couple of excerpts from the full transcript, lawyer, what is your professional understanding of what is transpiring in the two excerpts?

Unbelievable

Exactly, I'm shocked, I'm shocked I say.

We, the public learned today (Monday, June 12, 2022) that Donald Trump was told in no uncertain terms by his 'handlers,' 'lieutenants,' cabinet level officials, and campaign manager that he lost the election fair and square. . . through this set of hearings. . . and you see nothing there glaring back at you from the hearing (assuming you listened today) that explains why Donald is unfit to be the president of this country again or leader of the free world? Unbelievable.  Yet, every time you look at the democrats you see political dead-enders? Surreal.

You continually and consistently misrepresent my views, which means you either lack the intelligence to understand them or lack the ethics to acknowledge them.  Either way, I'm not interested.

exasperating alternative "analyses"

AKA: A different point of view. Are you really afraid of that? If the point is to let the American people decide, don’t you trust them to make an the best choice based on complete information? If you have to censor opposing viewpoints, that makes the one you present highly untrustworthy.

`To sit here and imply that justice is simply about 'winning' and damn the cost (to society) or to the standard of truth.

Umm, yeah. I don’t know where you’re gettin that CB. I think you lapsed into a fantasy there.

BTW, the evidence Monday about Trump 'grifting' for donations for voter fraud research or whatever it is

I have no problem with DOJ investigating him for whatever comes up. Use the justice system, not kangaroo courts or TV pundit shows.

(I can't think straight right now I am so pissed at what you stated)

That’s really your personal problem, isn’t it? Maybe chill and get some perspective because I have not done or said anything - that I am aware of - that would justify you being angry with me.

Some conservatives would not know truth at this point if it bore them a 'new one.'

I wouldn’t know. If you really think I’m all that conservative, you haven’t been reading very carefully. How many conservatives do you know who would be rocking a rainbow colored avatar?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggghhhhhtttttt!!!!  /s

I don't need a light to see through you.

A different point of view. Are you really afraid of that? If the point is to let the American people decide, don’t you trust them to make an the best choice based on complete information? If you have to censor opposing viewpoints, that makes the one you present highly untrustworthy.

Why would I be afraid of a 'motormouth' like Donald? The man talks out of both sides of his mouth and doublespeaks. Just look at the hemming and hawing he does in the full transcript excerpt I posted. He literally starts sentences on a positive ends with a negative or vice-versa. One has to interpret and surmise what he is after.

Okay. What is wrong with having republicans on the panel There are two. Interesting, that the moment they joined the panel they fell out of flavor with the party. Both are now on Republican political 'death-watch'. How fair is the viewpoint of the party being to them? Or, should we discount there valid purposes for being republican? If they chose to agree with the panel not presenting Donald's 'side' while they are prosecuting the case-are they wrong?

One more thing, Tacos! What say you, did Cheney and Kinzinger leave the Republican Party or did the republican party maroon Cheney and Kinzinger?

I’ll answer when I think you ask out of respect. Someone asked me a direct question and I answered it. That doesn’t give you license to disrespect me over it.

Touche. I will accept that. I humbly resubmit my questions in my comments with an understanding I can be less aggressive. I am just so 'full' of Trump 'outrages' these days I might not even recognize myself in the immediate. My apologies for attacking. See? I can listen as much as I talk!

Thanks, CB.

As far as Trump’s conversation with the Georgia SOS, what I see is a guy who has led a life of extreme privilege and is used to verbally bullying people to get what he wants. Is that disgusting? Of course. Is it a crime? Probably not.

Did Trump threaten or blackmail the SOS? I don’t think there is enough there. The reality is that most irregularities in elections are resolved either through some minor change in the count or maybe a fine is paid by the government. The SOS knows he is not going to jail for anything, and Trump was in no position to put him there anyway.

Did he engage in solicitation to commit election fraud? Meh. I see Trump claiming that the election in Georgia was marked by flaws that he calls criminal. If he really believed that, then asking the SOS to find votes is not inviting him to commit a crime. He’s urging him to remedy a wrong.

The entire “Stop the Steal” affair was wrong and disgusting. It breaks my heart that so many Americans are so dimwitted as to accept the allegations made by the Trump people so uncritically. It hurts that such morons are able to vote, and actually do.

But is any of it criminal? I honestly doubt it. And if it is, by all means, PROSECUTE THEM! That happens at the FBI, though, not in Congress, and definitely not in prime time.

What would make it criminal in my mind? Evidence of fraud. Some kind of email chain or recorded conversation that tells us Trump and his people knew damned well there was nothing wrong with the election and they decided to perpetrate a fraud on the American people and the legal system to overturn what they knew to be legitimate election results.

Some kind of email chain or recorded conversation that tells us Trump and his people knew damned well there was nothing wrong with the election and they decided to perpetrate a fraud on the American people and the legal system to overturn what they knew to be legitimate election results.

The committee has put forth several individuals closely tied to Trump who testify they informed him that his claims were nonsense.   That is not the same as a Watergate tape but seems to be on the right track.

"One thing I have noticed is that they are focused on calling Republican witnesses."

"I wouldn't suspect that there are many Dem witnesses."

They weren't the ones supporting trumpturd's incited/led failed insurrection/coup.  

They weren't the ones supporting trumpturd's incited/led failed insurrection/coup. 

Nothing can get past you, good job tessylo.

He told him they had evidence that he won the state by "many times" the 11,000 votes and discussed category after category of fraudulent votes that were wrongly counted. 

Yet he FAILED to actually provide that evidence. Innuendo does NOT count. 

BTW, did you note that Raffensperger told Trump that the courts had already ruled on much of the shit he was babbling about? 

He claimed, repeatedly,  to have won by hundreds of thousands of votes, but as he said it only matters that he won by one.  Which is undeniable.

Yet AGAIN, Trump FAILED to cite even ONE documented fact. 

There's no threats. He didn't ask him to lie. 

From the transcript:

So tell me, Brad, what are we going to do? We won the election and it's not fair to take it away from us like this. And it's going to be very costly in many ways. And I think you have to say that you're going to reexamine it and you can reexamine it, but reexamine it with people that want to find answers, not people that don't want to find answers. 

'Costly' HOW Sean? 

Here's more:

And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that's a big risk.

Sounds pretty threatening to me Sean...

It's not a crime to admit your goal is to win an election. 

It IS a crime to ask an election official to commit election fraud. Changing or eliminating even ONE vote outside of the legal process is a crime. That legal process had already been completed LONG before Trump's call. 

BTW, rereading that phone transcript bolsters the testimony of Richard Donoghue about having to play 'whack a mole' while Trump went from one debunked conspiracy theory to the next. 

Thank you.  The offer to the SOS was made that Trump's administration would scratch Georgia's GOP in its upcoming election by adding or subtracting Trump loyal voter counts if Georgia would find ('invent') votes we now know Trump knew were not missing, not for him, and worse would need to be taken from the winner Joe Biden. There is something morally and legally wrong with that. Right?

We now know that Trump spear-headed, "Stop the Steal" with AG Barr and his campaign having INFORMED him the election results were in order. But, Donald chose to commit to a campaign of subterfuge which has been going on for nearly two years (Donald is still 'railing' about 2020 voter fraud.)  Worse, Donald misappropriated funds from voters to the cache of 200M dollars-knowing there was no way in "h" he could argue the vote counts across the country—and has not bothered spending the funds to do so. We now know this.

Finally, anyway, we already know congressional committees are not legal assemblages, therefore I won't waste time on that. I say let the panel make its case.

One more thing, I fully understand the "privileged fat cat approach" Donald uses to get his way with people he feels are less than him (everybody), but it is not a defense against trampling down all civil customs, traditions, decency, lying brazenly and with intent to do harm to get what he want by any means necessary and finally causing harm to individuals, careers, deaths (in and related to the Capitol).

Donald's worse "demons" should have been left in the private sector when he CHOSE to run for government office and that: the office of the President.

That he is a cruel man is his private affair. That he causes harm to others and the nation is an affair for the nation!

We have Trump 'loyalists' and cabinet members (all so-called, "MAGA" republicans) under oath telling us what occurred and who Donald used to lead him astray (Guiliani and others) down a path toward the capitol insurrection.

Why do some people cuddle this 'wart' on the consciences of the GOP and this nation? Let this wart fall on its own 'sword' or disperse on its own—lacking support.

You should probably watch the Jan 6th hearings.

Sorry, I have important Manscaping to attend to. Also, these cigars aren't going to smoke themselves.

Thy might change your mind. 

Change my mind about what, exactly? I didn't vote for him. I'm not going to vote for him. What else would you like me to do John, that my mind needs to be changed?

Also, these cigars aren't going to smoke themselves.

one of the more intelligent comments I’ve read on NTers lately.

Dershowitz has clearly declined into senility.

I think he is just being a critical law professor.    He is technically correct that this is not a court of law and that it is very biased.    He misses the point of this presentation, but he is technically correct.   As an attorney, let me know if I am mistaken.

Friend TiG and Gsquared (the lawyer) correct me if I am wrong. In trying to point out the lack of a defense stake out position from those members making the public case against the rioters, insurrectionists, and the leaders of both categories of insurrectionists, when given an opportunity to be on the committee the wannabe republicans deferred when it was judge they would 'stack the deck' with well-known congressional house "agitators" and troublemakers not interested in the facts. Given the chance to provide open-minded republican panelists—"Dershowitz's" chosen side in this gathering balked and deferred. Thus, when the panel presents its evidences, yes, the opposing side will not have any one to speak on its behalf. Rather short-sighted in my opinion. But who's fault is it? The republicans.

Question: What justification demands the panelists 'find' Donald Trump and the insurrectionists accountable for their respective actions on January 6, 2021 and at the same time 'alleviate' the aforementioned of what occurred?

Pardon my delay in getting back to you.

Here's how it is.  Trump was on the offense for years, even claiming before the election that he could only lose if the election was rigged.  These hearings are the defense of the American system against the Trumpist onslaught.  It's that simple.

In answer to your question CB, there is none.

He's desperately trying to be relevant. 

No, he’s just doing what legal academics do: split every last, fucking hair.

People who know him only via Fox News or whatever think he’s a conservative, but he’s really not.

Dershowitz is full of shit. Everybody knows it is wrong to allow "the few" -"h"- one man to ride above the surface of law as if he and he alone can enjoy the space(s) he occupies there. It is a dangerous precedent to establish. The GOP will one day pay for its arrogance against the citizenry. Once people get their damn senses back down out of Trump's 'air'!

Dershowitz, could just like the intrigue of this arrogance 'ass' named Donald Trump tripping all the exposed 'charged or dead wires' in our legal system because Trump is that kind of 'dare.' Let him touch a live wire that is active and properly grounded and watch what happens; "POW!"

This is not a legal game of chicken, nevertheless.

Dershowitz has sunk lower than a snail's belly. Trump could call the committee today and be testifying tomorrow if he has something to say. He doesnt want his nose to grow three feet out of his head though. 

I wonder if the Trump asswipe Dershowitz is still claiming to be a liberal. 

I have to confess that I USED to respect Dershowitz.  The point is that the commission is NOT a "court of law" notwithstanding his attempt to identify it as such.  And since when has ANYTHING being broadcast or published for the public eye been absolutely unbiased?  He's right in comparing it to a sports contest - each side will do whatever it takes to win, neither side is hoping for a draw.  The contest being played these days is for the purpose of a win at the midterms, and for a win against even the POSSIBILITY of losing against Trump if he were to stay out of jail for 2024.

More importantly, this congressional panel are not Trump promoters, supporters, or enablers. Additionally, the duties and responsibilities of this fact-based panel is to get to the bottom of the January 6, 2021 insurrection which took away the long lives of several people. Somebody is responsible on a higher level than just so-called, 'rioters.' That is what this about. Not 'manning' up to get Donald Trump off. Yes, some of this is about Donald Trump, but not all of it is about Trump.

Dershowitz is full of shit! Three times the charm for him and now I will disapprove of him from now on no matter what position chickenshit or not he takes. Dershowitz has failed his reputation as a scholar by playing to the writers of history!

My suggestion is to consider the evidence and factor in the bias.    There is plenty of hard evidence, for example, to establish the fact that Trump knew that his Big Lie was groundless.   Similarly, the evidence shows that Trump knew of the insurrection violence and refused to act on it for three hours.    And after he finally acted, his words to the insurrectionists were supportive and he even repeated his Big Lie.

It does not matter how partisan / biased the committee when it comes down to hard evidence.   Go with that.

Also, Trump encouraged his supporters to march on the Capitol (and he said he would march with them).   He also told them the reason for the march:  "... because you'll never take back our country with weakness;  you have to show strength, you have to be strong".   The fact that he made contrary comments of being peaceful does not remove the fact that he ALSO used words that would incite his supporters such as telling them the reason for marching on the Capitol is to take back our country with strength in response to their votes being disenfranchised by a rigged system.

And he was working his supporters up well before the election with this rigged nonsense and went into overdrive once he lost the election.   Trump is the reason why so many people actually believed our system was corrupt and that he was the legitimate PotUS!

It is beyond obvious that Trump worked his supporters up into a frenzy and had them thinking the election was stolen.    Even if he constantly encouraged them to be peaceful (which he did only sporadically) that would not change the core fact that he spent months working them up and that he called for them to march the Capitol with strength to take back our country.

How is he making this in to teams? So one 'team' wanted to overthrow the government and one 'team' did not?

This is not politics as usual. This is not a normal tit for tat.

I can appreciate Dershowitz' position.   He is a law professor.   He is viewing this as a court of law.   And, in that regard, he is quite correct.

The problem is that one can only shoot spitballs at the evidence.   It is extremely (ridiculously so) obvious what Trump did.    There is no defense.    And hopefully this will reach a court of law and Trump will see justice for his historically outrageous words and deeds post his election loss.   Our nation should not stand for a sitting PotUS to abuse his influence as he did and against the very government that he was leading.

Yes but these are hearings looking into what happened. It is not a trial.

I also do not buy his parsing of words as to what trump did or did not do.

According to him if someone advocated setting a business on fire and the people did, that the person would have zero responsibility.

Yes but these are hearings looking into what happened. It is not a trial.

Agreed, but Dershowitz is a law professor and to him (I suspect) this has to be a trial to be legit.

According to him if someone advocated setting a business on fire and the people did, that the person would have zero responsibility.

I know, it is crap.   Comparing, for example, a single speech with incendiary language to a multi-month campaign amplified by the authority of the office of the presidency.

TiG and Ender, it could be Dershowitz is pulling 'double duty' complaining about the presentation while setting up an opportunity to be "invited" to put himself on public display if any trial comes out of it? He has involved himself in Trump's presidential hearing before, always with intent to provide 'cover' for republicans to shelter in place under while they downplay and negate what is obvious to all. History will not look favorably on Dershowitz. He ought to be ashamed, but I am pretty sure he is not ashamed.

I suspect Dershowitz considers himself the reigning authority who needs weigh in on such proceedings.   

And, I agree:  law professors do have a role of sorts to play as 'bit' players in the larger drama; Dershowitz seeks out-sized roles in historical hearings where he apparently hopes for mention in governmental record-keeping and historical versions of the proceedings. I only find fault with his "activities" because of the scandalous association with a known bad element (menace to society).

Basically he is using the same defense I heard the other day. He said 'go in peace', like that somehow erases every other thing he said.

Who are the stupid that fall for this bullshit?

"Basically he is using the same defense I heard the other day. He said 'go in peace', like that somehow erases every other thing he said. Who are the stupid that fall for this bullshit?"

Everyone still defending that steaming pile of shit.  Including the alleged lawyer here who went to a top notch school in California [deleted]

alleged lawyer here who went to a top notch school in California

[Deleted] that blamed "outside agitators" for all of the 2020 BLM/Antifa "summer of love" riots.

"alleged lawyer here who went to a top notch school in California"

"No different than the alleged hospital administration employee, who seems to ONLY always post during regular working hours, that blamed "outside agitators" for all of the 2020 BLM/Antifa "summer of love" riots."

DON'T DOX ME!

THE MAJORITY OF THE OUTSIDE AGITATORS WHO INCITED DURING THOSE PROTESTS WERE ALT-RIGHT/GQP/GOP/REPUBLICANS SUPPORTERS

DON'T DOX ME!

You've indicated everything in that comment several times over the years. Everyone knows what you do and where you do it thanks to some braggadocio on your part. Don't pretend. It's not a good look on anyone.

The only person that doxxed you is yourself.

You have rambled many times what city you work in, what type of facility you work in and what you do in that facility.

Even during the height of COVID, you bragged you worked from home, then were pissed that you had to split your time between working at home and going to the office twice a week, when others got to continue to work from home.

You were pissed that cut into your posting time.

'They doctored the tape,'' [Dershowitz] continued. ''They edited those words out. If a prosecutor ever did that, they'd be disbarred. You can't present part of the tape and deliberately omit the rest of the tape in order to mislead the audience, especially when the other side has no opportunity to cross-examine, no opportunity to present its own evidence.''   . . . ''So, President Trump committed no crimes,'' he said. ''Anybody who thinks that he did fails to understand the First Amendment.'

And there you have it. . . Dershowitz knows this is not a court of law, but the court of public opinion, and still he lends his so-called, 'balanced' statement in an effort to suggest that the point of all this is simply to score a win (for one's side), instead of finding out the truth and the intent behind why this happened. Moreover, we all have heard and agree the first amendment does not give one free speech to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded room-igniting those in attendance to 'bolt' for the doors, anymore than it does to ignite a political 'fire' and point it to the inside offices of the Capitol.

(Note: I see Ender is on this point before me above.)

Dershowitz is spot on with this comment:

People would take seriously a nonpartisan, non-biased commission,'' he said. ''But nobody should take seriously this one-sided basketball game in which only one team is allowed to shoot for the basket, and the other team is not even allowed to defend.

That said it doesn’t matter because the fix is in.    The biased commission will toot their horn five more times to no real effect.    

Meanwhile inflation will continue to rise, illegal aliens continue to pour across the border, Americans standard of living continues to go down, conservative judges now fear for their childrens lives and when Republicans take the house and Senate in November Democrats will want national healing with no investigations into their BS investigations.  

And the wheel goes around and around ….

Our government is failing us and people want argue about which politicians months old comments are more incendiary.    It’s ridiculous.   We are well and truly fucked if something isn’t done about it.

Perhaps this gun legislation is a start, since it seems like a pretty good compromise to me.   But, I’m sure the wailing and gnashing of teeth hasn’t even started in earnest on that yet.   I have almost zero faith in their ability to pass it.

We gotta get the extremism out of politics.   It is screwing all of us into the ground.

Dershowitz is full of shit. And that is odd coming from someone of his 'background.' He should understand what it means to harbor and give comfort to leaders who have larceny in their hearts for others. Especially, a chump like Trump who would in the next breath, throw "D" under the bus for 'disloyalty' were he to tender his statements in the other direction. Trump is not after impartiality and apparently neither is D after justice. Both men are working on some weird "win" yet again over the republic's idea of fairness and justice.

Dershowitz is full of shit.

Well then, you are even.

I’m sure he thinks you’re full of shit as well.

Why? Give your reasoning. I gave a portion of my reasoning each time I stated D was full of shit. Why should Dershowitz think I am full of shit for saying he is full of shit? And let's not stray please.

You’d have to ask him but I can surmise he might think you are full of it because your “reasoning” has absolute nothing to with his comment I quoted.

I suspect he thinks most internet lawyer’s who “reason” like that are full of it when it comes to matters of due process.   So don’t feel too bad about it. 

I'm not an "internet lawyer," but I do know a thing or two about life in the U.S just like "D" and you both. So you're just 'jaw-jacking' at me because I must look like something you can 'punch'? I'm not.

Another reason Dershowitz is full of shit:  He did not get up off his old tired dried up professorial butt and inform the panel, in his opinion, they would fall short if they did not allow some republican rabblerousers and 'haymakers' onto the panel anyway. No, "D" did not do that. Instead, this cheap 'thrillseeker" laid in wait for the end product to began rolling down the 'line' and then he could start finger-pointing for the history books! Stupid 'glory-hound.' Can't, won't, don't do the work, but always got something to 'add'!

Dershowitz has probably done more work in law than every on this website combined. He didn't reach the position he is in w/o putting in a vast amount of work. 

Democrats and the left are still butt hurt that he helped to defend Trump against impeachment. 

However Dershowitz puts the law first; and everything else second.

Calling the Jan 6th committee a highly partisan steaming heep of crap isn't stating anything that everyone already doesn't know. Pointing out them doctoring the "evidence" isn't either. In fact expect the Republicans to do so every chance they get; like they have done from the beginning. 

Many on the left are hoping that the Jan 6th committee will provide so much "evidence" (highly manufactured and edited manure); that Garland will have no choice to go after Trump. Unfortunately for them Garland isn't going to commit political suicide. Not with Republicans coming back into power after midterms. He doesn't want to face Republican House; and potentially Senate; inquiries- and if Republicans win enough seats in both- a potential impeachment attempt (even if it fails). Garland is more than happy to be the Democrat's political tool; going after Jan 6th rioters; cracking down on the alt right; and ignoring leftist rioters and terrorists. That still might get him in trouble with Republicans after midterms; but not like a failed attack on Trump by the DOJ would.

Lol .... the dump Dershowitz took this morning knows more about these things than you do.

Your biases are a clear and present danger to your “reasoning.”    That said, i leave the last word to you since you seem to relish in it so much.

You are dismissed ...

Please stop with this, it's repugnant. And beneath contempt to share.

Back to writing about butt holes again, I see.   Well, the problem here is not about buttholes, it is Dershowitz inserting himself as a critic from a position of knowing little to nothing about this specific set of proceedings format.  Now you can: Piss off!

Another reason Dershowitz is full of s'it: The use of the word 'doctored' is biased and meant to emotionally cripple and invalidate the panel proceedings in the eyes of the public. Even when Dershowitz is fully aware of the timetable the panel has been granted to convey its 'contents.' Dershowitz is a partisan hack for conservatives. It would better serve the nation if for now anyway he just shuts up!

BTW, who is it amongst politicians and political parties that complain about the U.S. having too many detailed laws on the books, but when it comes to Donald there is this need for "exacting" specificity of law (and nothing but laws) be spelled out in strict scrutiny almost with Donald J. Trump's name in them. Jokers on my left, clowns on the right and so we're stuck in the middle!  (Credit: Stuck In the Middle With You. -Steelers Wheels, 1972.)

Holy Shit. What many have thought all along is happening in real time. This shit show is ALL about going after Trump. PERIOD!!!! Not the cause of and solution to the actions of 1/6. That is all Liz is talking about. And "overseen by President Trump"? LMMFAO She's gonna get dizzy from the spin.

Not the cause of and solution to the actions of 1/6.

Trump was the cause of the actions of Jan 6th.  Where have you been? 

That is only partially true and ONLY if you want to stretch it to make it so. His rhetoric got some people riled up but he did NOT lead them like Teddy Roosevelt on a steed, sword in hand and held high in the air while yelling "charge". He did NOT tell them to rush the Capitol and break in to cause harm. Where have you been?

The "cause" of Jan. 6th was a bunch of morons thinking they may be able to actually do the fucking impossible. There was no Vulcan mind meld not thought control. You're seeing what you want to see just like this joke of a Goddamned committee.

That is only partially true.

Not partially true, completely true. Without Trumps fantasies of voter fraud and his calling on his supporters to come to Washington on Jan 6th to "stop the steal" nothing would have happened at the capitol that day. 

come to Washington on Jan 6th to "stop the steal"

Can you provide a quote of him saying that? I would really like to see it. Not a he said she said but actual video or sound track. Thanks.

Is this all false to you?:

Since that has nothing to do with what was posted that I responded to, yes. Yes it is false. Read this again.................

his calling on his supporters to come to Washington on Jan 6th to "stop the steal"

and this......................

Can you provide a quote of him saying that? I would really like to see it. Not a he said she said but actual video or sound track. Thanks.

Now you were saying?

Let's see, if Trump had never planted the seed (repeatedly) that our electoral system is rigged, had acknowledged that the election was legit and had conceded accordingly, what would have motivated his supporters to storm the Capitol?

Yeah 'Just Jim' I expected you to stick to strict wording because you are not really interested in truth but rather simply seek to defend Trump.   Yours is an obvious game:   the only evidence allowed is that which exactly, word for word, matches the allegation.   Equivalent evidence is rejected.

It is an obvious, simplistic and dishonest game.

Equivalent?

That was the question I asked to the post that made the claim. That you chose to dive and divert isn't my problem. You did nothing to prove JR's posit.

So in your mind you do not believe that Trump was behind the 'Stop the steal' campaign and that he did nothing to promote his supporters to march on the Capitol.

By the way, 'Just Jim', your rolling on the floor laughing emoji illustrates that this is just a silly game to you.   It removes any benefit of the doubt that you are sincere.

[deleted]  They do next to nothing to either make a point or prove a point. They dont address anything of substance but simply try and rebut what other people say by repeating inanities. 

It is virtually a waste of time to participate in such a farce but this is the only option Newstalkers gives us.

Without Donald Trump's claims of fraud there would have been no "Jan 6th". That is completely obvious. Yet we are supposed to entertain some nonsense to the contrary. It is ridiculous and I wish someone besides me would say so. 

comment removed for context [ph] They do next to nothing to either make a point or prove a point. They dont address anything of substance but simply try and rebut what other people say by repeating inanities. 

Generally true

Without Donald Trump's claims of fraud there would have been no "Jan 6th". That is completely obvious. Yet we are supposed to entertain some nonsense to the contrary. It is ridiculous and I wish someone besides me would say so. 

I have stated that.   And it is entirely obvious.   The 'defense' of Trump is pathetic.   It just boggles the mind that some actually try to defend Trump.   To what end?   They simply make themselves look ridiculous.

comment removed for context [ph]

Yeah, the temerity of “those people” having a differing opinion.    

Must be tough for all y’all to put up with “those people.”    With their different opinions and all.

This is not complicated.   If Trump did not promote a rigged election then his supporters would have had no reason to storm the Capitol.

It removes any benefit of the doubt that you are sincere.

To you possibly but I found your comment quite comical..................

"So in your mind you do not believe that Trump was behind the 'Stop the steal' campaign and that he did nothing to promote his supporters to march on the Capitol.

---

By the way, 'Just Jim', your rolling on the floor laughing emoji illustrates that this is just a silly game to you.   It removes any benefit of the doubt that you are sincere."

You're just realizing that?

I never take anything he says seriously.  Ever.  Waste of time.  Or any of the other [deleted supporters.]  

This is not complicated.   If Trump did not promote a rigged election then his supporters would have had no reason to storm the Capitol.

Not complicated for anyone with more than half a brain, but some apparently aren't that lucky. Some continue to ignore the basic facts which is a direct trail from Trump and his intentional lies to the attempted insurrection.

Fact: Prior to the 2020 election Trump claimed, with zero evidence, that if he lost then it would have been because of widespread voter fraud with 'illegals' voting for Democrats.

Fact: After the election and it was becoming clear that Trump had lost he continued to push unfounded claims of election fraud and proclaimed the election was "stolen".

Fact: After weeks and weeks of investigations by his own campaign staff and the justice department no credible evidence of any widespread voter fraud was found and Trump was informed of that on multiple occasions. On top of that the 62 court cases the campaign had started were thrown out for lack of evidence with many attorneys being disciplined or having their ability to practice law suspended for filing frivolous lawsuits. 

Fact: Instead of accepting the reality and the facts being given to him, Trump instead chose to continue spreading the big lie of widespread voter fraud and continued to fund raise based on this big lie. Sadly, tens of millions of his followers were gullible enough to believe him and even now there are tens of millions who refuse to accept reality. As of April 2022 there are still 68% of Republicans who believe dishonest Donald's big lie. Trump Supporters Explain Why They Believe the Big Lie - The Atlantic

Fact: Trump continued to push the big lie through and even after January 6th (and is still pushing it). Without the big fat lie or the big fat liar repeating it over and over, there would have been no attack on the capital January 6th.

Not complicated for anyone with more than half a brain, but some apparently aren't that lucky.

Amazing, is it not, that so many pretend to be stupid as a tactic?   Instead of formulating a thoughtful rebuttal they intentional 'misunderstand' and apparently think this is clever and that nobody notices the pathetic tactic.

What gets me is donald himself could stop this at any time. Yet he doesn't and won't. 

So, Imo he knows he is fanning the flames and wants the turmoil.

The ones that say he has no control over this are only giving him cover to continue while ignoring that all of this rests on his shoulders.

Can you provide a quote of him saying that? I would really like to see it

This is when you see most liberals activate the "go into hiding and be silent" trait they posses when they are challenged to provide the truth.

What is the truth here bugsy?   Do you assert that Trump is not behind the "Stop the Steal" mantra?

Seems to me the only truth you (collectively) care about is Trump making a specific statement with exact wording.  In short, you (collectively) do not care about truth but rather only to make a chickenshit trivial  nit-picky argument on a social media site:  "show me where Trump stated exactly the following words:  __________".

To wit, do you assert that Trump is not behind the "Stop the Steal" mantra — that Trump did not seed into the minds of his followers that the election was stolen from him (them)?

Sorry, TiG but I am taking a break from conversing with you. You have a bad habit of requiring last word and not recognizing compromise, or when a member states they no longer want to converse with you.

Bad form.

You will probably respond, but I will not respond in kind.

Can you provide a quote of him saying that? I would really like to see it. Not a he said she said but actual video or sound track. Thanks.

Take a very long break then.

In the meantime, I will continue to rebut your nonsense and you will continue to fail to defend it.

No, DP, you have to provide a video of Trump using the exact words of the allegation.   

( Good find, by the way, to get so close to their chickenshit demands. )