What the hell were they thinking?
-
Aren’t we discussing impeachment? It’s open and shut. This is the only impeachment in our history that will improve with age.
But to your question, criminal liability? No way. Not unless we learn something yuge from the investigation.
@jon-nyc said in What the hell were they thinking?:
Aren’t we discussing impeachment? It’s open and shut. This is the only impeachment in our history that will improve with age.
But to your question, criminal liability? No way. Not unless we learn something yuge from the investigation.
If it’s not criminal, then how can he be impeached for High Crime? This is actually worse than the 2019 impeachment and is in fact weakening the impeachment power by Congress.
The Brad
-
@lufins-dad said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@xenon said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@lufins-dad said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@jon-nyc said in What the hell were they thinking?:
Why do you take the rally on the 6th as your t=0?
Why were they even there? How many of these clowns knew what the significance of Jan 6th was before November? Or even before Trump promoted it?
Why did 10s of millions absorb the stolen election memetic complex?
Why did the movement get so much oxygen in right wing media?
Why did Wood and Powell get so much attention?
How many 10s of millions of people did he promote Flynn’s tweets to?Does any of that stand up to Brandenburg? That’s a decision for the courts. Not you, not me, and sure as hell not Nancy Pelosi. So let’s put it to them.
If you killed someone’s mother in front of them and the killer got killed in retaliation, that wouldn’t stand up to the Brandenburg test either.
WTF? I don’t even see the analogy you are shooting for?
Brandenburg is specifically the benchmark for incitement to violence by public speech.
You can get people riled up to the point of crime, without being criminally liable for riling them up.
@xenon said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@lufins-dad said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@xenon said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@lufins-dad said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@jon-nyc said in What the hell were they thinking?:
Why do you take the rally on the 6th as your t=0?
Why were they even there? How many of these clowns knew what the significance of Jan 6th was before November? Or even before Trump promoted it?
Why did 10s of millions absorb the stolen election memetic complex?
Why did the movement get so much oxygen in right wing media?
Why did Wood and Powell get so much attention?
How many 10s of millions of people did he promote Flynn’s tweets to?Does any of that stand up to Brandenburg? That’s a decision for the courts. Not you, not me, and sure as hell not Nancy Pelosi. So let’s put it to them.
If you killed someone’s mother in front of them and the killer got killed in retaliation, that wouldn’t stand up to the Brandenburg test either.
WTF? I don’t even see the analogy you are shooting for?
Brandenburg is specifically the benchmark for incitement to violence by public speech.
You can get people riled up to the point of crime, without being criminally liable for riling them up.
So you’re saying Bernie is responsible for the gunman that attacked the congressional softball event? Good to know. And should we even talk about Obama’s “They bring a knife, then we bring a gun!”
The actual violent nutjobs were obviously not influenced by Trump’s words. If they were then they would have peacefully and patriotically made their voices heard.
What that has to do with answering one criminally violent and horrendous act with another violent and horrendous act escapes me.
-
@jon-nyc said in What the hell were they thinking?:
Aren’t we discussing impeachment? It’s open and shut. This is the only impeachment in our history that will improve with age.
But to your question, criminal liability? No way. Not unless we learn something yuge from the investigation.
If it’s not criminal, then how can he be impeached for High Crime? This is actually worse than the 2019 impeachment and is in fact weakening the impeachment power by Congress.
@lufins-dad said in What the hell were they thinking?:
If it’s not criminal, then how can he be impeached for High Crime?
Because ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ is a concept that goes back to the Middle Ages and doesn’t mean ‘a violation of federal statute’.
This is actually worse than the 2019 impeachment and is in fact weakening the impeachment power by Congress.
I think you will come to think otherwise in the fullness of time.
-
@lufins-dad said in What the hell were they thinking?:
If it’s not criminal, then how can he be impeached for High Crime?
Because ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ is a concept that goes back to the Middle Ages and doesn’t mean ‘a violation of federal statute’.
This is actually worse than the 2019 impeachment and is in fact weakening the impeachment power by Congress.
I think you will come to think otherwise in the fullness of time.
@jon-nyc said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@lufins-dad said in What the hell were they thinking?:
If it’s not criminal, then how can he be impeached for High Crime?
Because ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ is a concept that goes back to the Middle Ages and doesn’t mean ‘a violation of federal statute’.
This is actually worse than the 2019 impeachment and is in fact weakening the impeachment power by Congress.
I think you will come to think otherwise in the fullness of time.
We’re talking crime and criminality... Pretty basic concept.
Unless an investigation shows Trump actually conspiring with QAnon, I doubt my opinion will change much.
I still stand by my original statement, I CAN see criminal charges being brought against Trump and would not personally mind... But I do doubt that he would be convicted.
But either way, a 2 hour speech fest by the House with no evidence, no investigation, no testimony? That’s a fvcking joke and always will be.
The Brad
-
Some of the folks who have been identified.
A former Navy Seal who boasted of breaking into the Capitol.
It appears a few police were involved in the assault and the notion that the invaders were unarmed has been disproved.
The Chicago Tribune reports on this guy - "“We will surround the (expletive) White House and we will kill any (expletive) Democrat that steps on the (expletive) lawn,” Chicago Heights resident Louis Capriotti allegedly said in a Dec. 29 voicemail left for a U.S. House member."
People not using their best judgment.
-
@xenon said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@lufins-dad said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@xenon said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@lufins-dad said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@jon-nyc said in What the hell were they thinking?:
Why do you take the rally on the 6th as your t=0?
Why were they even there? How many of these clowns knew what the significance of Jan 6th was before November? Or even before Trump promoted it?
Why did 10s of millions absorb the stolen election memetic complex?
Why did the movement get so much oxygen in right wing media?
Why did Wood and Powell get so much attention?
How many 10s of millions of people did he promote Flynn’s tweets to?Does any of that stand up to Brandenburg? That’s a decision for the courts. Not you, not me, and sure as hell not Nancy Pelosi. So let’s put it to them.
If you killed someone’s mother in front of them and the killer got killed in retaliation, that wouldn’t stand up to the Brandenburg test either.
WTF? I don’t even see the analogy you are shooting for?
Brandenburg is specifically the benchmark for incitement to violence by public speech.
You can get people riled up to the point of crime, without being criminally liable for riling them up.
So you’re saying Bernie is responsible for the gunman that attacked the congressional softball event? Good to know. And should we even talk about Obama’s “They bring a knife, then we bring a gun!”
The actual violent nutjobs were obviously not influenced by Trump’s words. If they were then they would have peacefully and patriotically made their voices heard.
What that has to do with answering one criminally violent and horrendous act with another violent and horrendous act escapes me.
@lufins-dad said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@xenon said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@lufins-dad said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@xenon said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@lufins-dad said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@jon-nyc said in What the hell were they thinking?:
Why do you take the rally on the 6th as your t=0?
Why were they even there? How many of these clowns knew what the significance of Jan 6th was before November? Or even before Trump promoted it?
Why did 10s of millions absorb the stolen election memetic complex?
Why did the movement get so much oxygen in right wing media?
Why did Wood and Powell get so much attention?
How many 10s of millions of people did he promote Flynn’s tweets to?Does any of that stand up to Brandenburg? That’s a decision for the courts. Not you, not me, and sure as hell not Nancy Pelosi. So let’s put it to them.
If you killed someone’s mother in front of them and the killer got killed in retaliation, that wouldn’t stand up to the Brandenburg test either.
WTF? I don’t even see the analogy you are shooting for?
Brandenburg is specifically the benchmark for incitement to violence by public speech.
You can get people riled up to the point of crime, without being criminally liable for riling them up.
So you’re saying Bernie is responsible for the gunman that attacked the congressional softball event? Good to know. And should we even talk about Obama’s “They bring a knife, then we bring a gun!”
The actual violent nutjobs were obviously not influenced by Trump’s words. If they were then they would have peacefully and patriotically made their voices heard.
What that has to do with answering one criminally violent and horrendous act with another violent and horrendous act escapes me.
I think we might have listened to the same Ben Shapiro podcast.
Bernie could have riled up the shooter by railing against Congressmen who cater to the rich (or something). But is it reasonable to expect or foresee that Bernie’s political positions lead to violence?
For Trump, he’s telling people he won a landslide election. Then that election was stolen. Then he was stonewalled by all the courts in the land. Is it reasonable to foresee that some people could resort to violence if they believe their democracy has literally been stolen and they have no representation?
EDIT: I dunno what the specific context on Obama”s quote is ( “They bring a knife, then we bring a gun!”) - but that just seems like prudent self-defense.
One more thought on Trump. Even if there were no violence by the mob, why is he sending them to the Capitol to pressure the Vice President to do something unconstitutional? He’s the principal defender of the constitution and we keep treating him with kid gloves for some reason.
-
@jon-nyc said in What the hell were they thinking?:
@lufins-dad said in What the hell were they thinking?:
If it’s not criminal, then how can he be impeached for High Crime?
Because ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ is a concept that goes back to the Middle Ages and doesn’t mean ‘a violation of federal statute’.
This is actually worse than the 2019 impeachment and is in fact weakening the impeachment power by Congress.
I think you will come to think otherwise in the fullness of time.
We’re talking crime and criminality... Pretty basic concept.
Unless an investigation shows Trump actually conspiring with QAnon, I doubt my opinion will change much.
I still stand by my original statement, I CAN see criminal charges being brought against Trump and would not personally mind... But I do doubt that he would be convicted.
But either way, a 2 hour speech fest by the House with no evidence, no investigation, no testimony? That’s a fvcking joke and always will be.
@lufins-dad said in What the hell were they thinking?:
We’re talking crime and criminality... Pretty basic concept.
Are we? Seems like you’re floating back and forth between criminal prosecution and impeachment. Maybe you’re not not aware how different they are.
-
@kluurs said in What the hell were they thinking?:
What is the three finger wave that a lot of people in the picture are doing?
-
@kluurs said in What the hell were they thinking?:
What is the three finger wave that a lot of people in the picture are doing?
@taiwan_girl said in What the hell were they thinking?:
What is the three finger wave that a lot of people in the picture are doing?
Proud Boy shit.
-
@kluurs said in What the hell were they thinking?:
What is the three finger wave that a lot of people in the picture are doing?
@taiwan_girl said in What the hell were they thinking?:
What is the three finger wave that a lot of people in the picture are doing?
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764728163/the-ok-hand-gesture-is-now-listed-as-a-symbol-of-hate
-
-
@renauda said in What the hell were they thinking?:
No doubt about it, they were there to rumble and rumble they did.
I have it on pretty good authority that they were there in a tourist capacity.
Please love yourself.
-
In the long run it will be fascinating to understand what the total crowd was and what percent were premeditated attackers. I say that because I want to know how many joined in as part of mob mentality.
We need to know from all protests in the US how much spark is necessary to start a catastrophic fire.
