How do you have an impeachment trial without a judge?

[DougBH]

@SottoVoce

That’s only what he said during the rally immediately before the Capitol attack. Could add plenty if things he said prior to that.

Like I said, nothing he said matters to his followers. The argument will remain that he didn’t literally say it or that he was joking/figurative. The same excuses used throughout his presidency - ultimately he is not responsible for anything he says.

Well, yes. If you are accused of saying something that caused an “insurrection” then a major point of defense would be that you didn’t say it.
He is not responsible for saying things that he didn’t say.

[Meriweather]

@SottoVoce

No. What’s silly is the lack of context and the perceived infallibility of Trump by his followers.

Trump starts by saying the election was stolen. He goes on to list all the different debunked claims as to fraud. He further goes on to list all the local, state and Supreme Court actions which were unsuccessful. He then says Constitutionally there is nothing more that he can do.

The election was stolen and all legal/Constitutional means have been thwarted.

He peppers in repeated statements of he and his listeners not conceding, not giving up, not standing by while asking for showing strength, being strong, defending and fighting.

Trump makes the claim the election is fraudulent. He states all legal and Constitutional avenues have failed. He says not to give in and to show strength, defend and fight.

Again, where is the crime in any of that? The fact is that there were irregularities in the election. Second fact, we do need to take a look at ballot harvesting, unsupervised drop-off points; ballots mailed more than once to one individual; dead people voting; checking the number of registered voters against the number received. I do not know what sources you checked to verify all these questions, but I went to primary sources; What I deduced from them is that irregularities did occur, but not enough to change the election results. The only option left was whether there was enough concern in Congress that the irregularities that did occur were great enough to hold off on confirming the electoral college. There was not enough concern in Congress, and I never thought there would be. That left only the electorate to voice concern. Is it a crime for the electorate to voice concern? Is it a crime to ask the electorate to show concern? There is an enormous difference between someone asking supporters for a show of concern around the Capitol (ninety-nine percent) and breaking into the Capitol (which occurred before the speech ended).

While I do not see enough to question election results, I see plenty to question election irregularities. I care enough about the latter to speak out.

Who goes to the Capitol armed with material to force a break-in? Who goes uninvited into anyone’s office? Not me, and nor do the majority of US Citizens and that includes President Trump. The one thing I never heard anyone accuse him of was entering an office or a building where he was not invited. Not only did he not say anything to suggest anyone do this, he had set no example for this kind of behavior.

He was simply one of many who has concerns about our elections. That should not have come to a surprise to anyone. In 2017, he wanted each State’s election processes researched. He was told, No, but it was what he wanted. No crime there, either.

[Oldandtired]

Pass policies that cost people money or their jobs and does not matter who controls the message the party in charge will be gone.
We are already seeing the polices cost people money and jobs and it has only been a week. It’s going to be really hard for the leftist to keeping bribing the voters with a check every six months for the next 1 1/2 years,
It’s already backfiring on the leftist.
Watch the red wave in the mid terms.

[SottoVoce]

@DougBH

@SottoVoce

That’s only what he said during the rally immediately before the Capitol attack. Could add plenty if things he said prior to that.

Like I said, nothing he said matters to his followers. The argument will remain that he didn’t literally say it or that he was joking/figurative. The same excuses used throughout his presidency - ultimately he is not responsible for anything he says.

Well, yes. If you are accused of saying something that caused an “insurrection” then a major point of defense would be that you didn’t say it.
He is not responsible for saying things that he didn’t say.

You don’t have to explicitly say something in order to be guilty of inciting an event. Explicit versus implicature, I already gave a paper discussing such. Trump doesn’t have to have literally say “go to the Capitol and start an insurrection” to incite an insurrection. It can be implied by what he said.

[WuWei]

For 64 days. Well done.

[WuWei]

I hate to use the word, but the “reasonableness” standard is in play here for him.

[DougBH]

@SottoVoce

You don’t have to explicitly say something in order to be guilty of inciting an event. Explicit versus implicature, I already gave a paper discussing such. Trump doesn’t have to have literally say “go to the Capitol and start an insurrection” to incite an insurrection. It can be implied by what he said.

Not from anything I have seen quoted, it cannot be implied. What can be implied is that he wanted a demonstration.
First amendment right.

[Samm]

@biggestal99

@Samm

Lack of evidence is not proof of no fraud.

You can’t prove a negative.

Allan

Well there ya go. My point exactly. There is no evidence on which to conclude knowing one way or the other. Its all just belief.

[Meriweather]

@SottoVoce

It can be implied by what he said.

Wrong word. It can be inferred (by others) by what he said. He can say he implied it; otherwise it is merely your inference of what he said.

[Samm]

@SottoVoce

Point proven. Yet again. Thanks!

Please explain how asking a question (which you have chosen to not answer) prove any point? Sounds like lib magic.

[SottoVoce]

@Meriweather

@SottoVoce

It can be implied by what he said.

Wrong word. It can be inferred (by others) by what he said. He can say he implied it; otherwise it is merely your inference of what he said.

No. Implied/implicature and inferred/inference have different legal meanings. Implied is the correct term.

Implied: meaning is derived from the words or actions of the individuals involved
Inferred: proposition sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state of facts, already proved or admitted

[Meriweather]

@SottoVoce

No. Implied/implicature and inferred/inference have different legal meanings. Implied is the correct term.

Implied: meaning is derived from the words or actions of the individuals involved
Inferred: proposition sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state of facts, already proved or admitted

Let’s give this further consideration. In this thread, we asked for quotes that were criminal in nature. No one was able to show criminality in any of these quotes, so then you said that taking criminal action was “implied” in the quotes.

Implied is in the given message. President Trump, in giving the message, implied nothing criminal. You, upon receiving the message, inferred criminality. Implied is upon giving; Inferred happens upon receiving. Further, your inference took place well after the speech–and after a pre-planned break-in occurred; a break-in that began before President Trump even ended his speech.

[zantax]

They know they don’t have a crime, if they did, he would have been charged criminally already.

[SottoVoce]

@Meriweather

@SottoVoce

No. Implied/implicature and inferred/inference have different legal meanings. Implied is the correct term.

Implied: meaning is derived from the words or actions of the individuals involved
Inferred: proposition sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state of facts, already proved or admitted

Let’s give this further consideration. In this thread, we asked for quotes that were criminal in nature. No one was able to show criminality in any of these quotes, so then you said that taking criminal action was “implied” in the quotes.

Implied is in the given message. President Trump, in giving the message, implied nothing criminal. You, upon receiving the message, inferred criminality. Implied is upon giving; Inferred happens upon receiving. Further, your inference took place well after the speech–and after a pre-planned break-in occurred; a break-in that began before President Trump even ended his speech.

I’m not on trial for inciting insurrection. What I may or may not infer is inconsequential. Trump won’t get convicted or acquitted based on inference. People can infer whatever they want about anything they want. You infer his statements were benign. Great. I infer his statements were not benign. Great. Neither of our inferences matter.

The only thing that matters is if it is determined Trump gave an implicit (as opposed to explicit) statement or command inciting insurrection.

Time of reference has zero to do with it. No one has a time machine or crystal ball. Non sequitur.

[WuWei]

In the US justice system, where does the burden of proof fall?

“Prove you didn’t cheat!” Is not a conservative principle.