Yeah, with the new ruling Jill, I mean Joe O'Biden will put a hit on Trump and take him out right after the RNC makes his nomination official. It will be done in order for O'Biden to preserve American democracy from the threat of the Great White Orange Man.
Because no jury in the country will convict him now for it would be official business in the name of preserving national security from the greatest threat this country has ever faced in its history. And to prevent Trump from doing it to O'Biden himself. In other words, beating Trump to the punch.
Hunter will be the trigger man, quickly turn himself in so that daddy will pardon him immediately for his selfless act for the country.
Barbara L. McQuade, BA â87, JD â91, is a professor from practice at Michigan Law. Her interests include criminal law, criminal procedure, national security, data privacy, and civil rights. From 2010 to 2017, McQuade served as the US attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. Appointed by President Barack Obama, she was the first woman to serve in her position.
McQuade also served as vice chair of the Attorney Generalâs Advisory Committee and co-chaired its Terrorism and National Security Subcommittee. As US attorney, she oversaw cases involving public corruption, terrorism, corporate fraud, theft of trade secrets, civil rights, and health care fraud, among others. She also serves as a legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, Foreign Policy, Lawfare, Just Security, Slate, and National Public Radio, and she has been quoted in The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, Politico, and other publications.
Before becoming US attorney, McQuade was an assistant US attorney in Detroit for 12 years, serving as deputy chief of the National Security Unit, where she handled cases involving terrorism financing, export violations, threats, and foreign agents. She began her career practicing law at the firm of Butzel Long in Detroit. She previously taught at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law.
Yes, I am quite familiar with the actual phrase. I watched the address in real time and plainly heard him say peacefully in the quote you cited. Clearly enough to immediately note its omission when referencing his rally speech.
Re: fight like hell. A very commonly used term in political speeches by all sides all of the time. To single it out here, imo, is disingenuous and misleading when looking at how commonly used the phrase is.
Someone commits a single instance - who cares? But he has not committed a single instance. Instead:
Yes, I am quite familiar with the actual phrase. I watched the address in real time and plainly heard him say peacefully in the quote you cited. Clearly enough to immediately note its omission when referencing his rally speech.
Re: fight like hell. A very commonly used term in political speeches by all sides all of the time. To single it out here, imo, is disingenuous and misleading when looking at how commonly used the phrase is.
So if he didn't mean it, why did he say nothing for over 3 hours?
You left out the part where Trump said "PEACEFULLY" walk to the Capitol, just like everyone else has who is trying to take him down. Why is it that you all deliberately refuse to acknowledge that ?
Democrats have pointed to one phrase in particular as they argue that Trump incited those present to march down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol. "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," he said.His defense lawyers, however, point to a different passage, in which Trump said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." They argue that his words were not a call for actual violence and lawlessness.
In his entire 70-minute address he used the word "peacefully" once, and not as a directive.
Yes, I am quite familiar with the actual phrase. I watched the address in real time and plainly heard him say peacefully in the quote you cited. Clearly enough to immediately note its omission when referencing his rally speech.
Re: fight like hell. A very commonly used term in political speeches by all sides all of the time. To single it out here, imo, is disingenuous and misleading when looking at how commonly used the phrase is.
You left out the part where Trump said "PEACEFULLY" walk to the Capitol, just like everyone else has who is trying to take him down.
Why is it that you all deliberately refuse to acknowledge that ?
Democrats have pointed to one phrase in particular as they argue that Trump incited those present to march down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol. "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," he said.
His defense lawyers, however, point to a different passage, in which Trump said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." They argue that his words were not a call for actual violence and lawlessness.
In his entire 70-minute address he used the word "peacefully" once, and not as a directive.
In his speech before the riot, Trump praised supporters for showing up to “save our democracy.” He told supporters “we’re going to walk down to the Capitol ... You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”
You left out the part where Trump said "PEACEFULLY" walk to the Capitol, just like everyone else has who is trying to take him down.
Why is it that you all deliberately refuse to acknowledge that ?
The defendant knowingly incited, engaged in, or gave aid and comfort to a rebellion or insurrection.
Starting in December, Trump repeatedly encouraged his supporters on Twitter to show up for a âbig protestâ in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, the day that Congress accepted the Electoral College votes.
At a Georgia rally Jan. 4, Trump told supporters âweâre going to take what they did to us on Nov. 3. Weâre going to take it back.â
In his speech before the riot, Trump praised supporters for showing up to âsave our democracy.â He told supporters âweâre going to walk down to the Capitol ... You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.â
kurtster wrote:
The rebellion or insurrection was against the authority of the United States or its laws.
I know you aren't serious but as noted elsewhere - for any onlookers, so no one thinks we are ceding the argument to your nonsense:
The defendant's actions were willful and intentional.
? Is your argument here that he simply didn't know what he was doing? You might actually get a little traction on that until we apply some basic common sense and realize that the president had at least 4 years to familiarize himself with the process. His actions from the preceding November make this pretty clearly intentional.
The defendant knowingly incited, engaged in, or gave aid and comfort to a rebellion or insurrection. The rebellion or insurrection was against the authority of the United States or its laws. The defendant's actions were willful and intentional.
And exactly how many have been charged with insurrection or rebellion for that matter ?
And how many have been actually convicted ?
An accusation alone does not make someone guilty, last time I heard anyway.
Taking things a step further regarding accusations equals conviction ...
This being a music site overall, how many have accused Rock and Roll as being the Devil's Music ?
Probably as a proportion of the population at the time, the same as who are calling January 6 an insurrection.
Is R n R the Devil's Music ? Must be with all the accusers saying so, right ?
It was a riot in support of thwarting an official action by Congress. That action was certifying the presidential election.
Merriam-Webster says that an insurrection is "the act or an instance of revolting especially violently against civil or political authority or against an established government. also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt."
January 6 meets that test.
The storming of the Capitol was only part of the insurrection. That was the stinkbomb intended to create chaos and encourage Trump supporters to claim the normal election procedure was hopelessly corrupted and confused.
As Ken Chesebro and others have testified, the plan was to disrupt the formal Electoral Vote count to provide sufficient time for more applications to courts (with the help of complicit DOJ attorneys) to have the election results disputed. The courts in various swing states would throw the election decision to state legislatures who would appoint Trump's selected slate of fake electors who'd vote for Trump. I believe GOP members of Congress were supposed to contribute to the confusion by constantly challenging the Electoral vote counts—see the Green Bay Sweep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...(politics)
Forgive me if I've muddled some of the details. It's such an idiotic idea that typing it makes me wonder whether I've embellished its ramshackle stupidity.
January 6 was only a riot and was never an insurrection.
It was a riot in support of thwarting an official action by Congress. That action was certifying the presidential election.
Merriam-Webster says that an insurrection is "the act or an instance of revolting especially violently against civil or political authority or against an established government. also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt."
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
May 3, 2024 - 3:31pm
kurtster wrote:
I have been waiting for this video to pop up on youtube by itself, but for some reason it has not.
Another Levin video. This one having to do with the question of POTUS immunity and also the actual precedent for alternate sets of electoral college electors that dates back to the election of 1876. This is just the same thing as the events that led up to January 6.
It stands up for me enough for me to hang my hat on it. January 6 was only a riot and was never an insurrection.
I have been waiting for this video to pop up on youtube by itself, but for some reason it has not.
Another Levin video. This one having to do with the question of POTUS immunity and also the actual precedent for alternate sets of electoral college electors that dates back to the election of 1876. This is just the same thing as the events that led up to January 6.
It stands up for me enough for me to hang my hat on it. January 6 was only a riot and was never an insurrection.
Levin is very good at weaving elements of truth into something follwers will believe as factual. Take 10% of 10 stories, and you end up with 100% truth.
I'm a bit simpler. I don't need obscure 1860' and 1870's events... I'll listen to those who know more than me, and if their analysis supports what I saw... I go with it... hat and all.
I have been waiting for this video to pop up on youtube by itself, but for some reason it has not.
Another Levin video. This one having to do with the question of POTUS immunity and also the actual precedent for alternate sets of electoral college electors that dates back to the election of 1876. This is just the same thing as the events that led up to January 6.
It stands up for me enough for me to hang my hat on it. January 6 was only a riot and was never an insurrection.
