There is the matter of truth. According the decision of the courts there was no evidence even to judges appointed by Trump that the election was not a free and fair election. Trump did not accept the results of this election and encouraged his followers to challenge it. Officials in a democratic society accept the results of elections even when it goes against them. They cooperate with the incoming official to yield power to the new leader and his or her assistants. Trump did not do that but encouraged his followers to oppose the results. This is the pattern he followed as a real estate developer. He would not pay a contractor the amount billed but would offer a fraction of the amount and would tie up a contractor in litigation if he refused. Trump used a variation of this tactic after the 2020 election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/28/i-sold-trump-100000-worth-of-pianos-then-he-stiffed-me/

Everyone has a right to an opinion.

I believe Trump indeed cited events on the Congress, as do the majority of Americans, although there is an immense difference between Democrats and Republican voters.

https://www.vox.com/2021/1/16/22234704/poll-republicans-trump-capitol-riot-blam

1. Trump lost the $Billions his Mummy and Daddy gave him.

He was then bailed out of bankruptcy by the Russians, several times.

2. Youtubes and Speech transcript prove Trump incided his mob to go to the Capitol/Parliament Building to then go into the Building.

If some Antifa 'leader', forgetting that that anarchist rabble don't have leaders, had urged supporters to smash their way in and take over the Capitol Buildings, as Trumpf did, then surely that would be incitement ?

If the Antifa rabble HAD done that, wouldn't that be something like insurrection ? The police would have had the right, perhaps the duty, to shoot the lot. The Alt-right would have gone ape-sh!t.

In Trumpf's case, it amounted to incitement to overthrow his own government. Has any US president ever approached this level of treason ?

Of course, he'll get off any impeachment charge - the Republicans in the Senate are watching their base for the 2022 mid-term elections, regardless of the right or wrong of any issue. Big mistake eventually, I suspect.

Joe

The Democrats are merely projecting their own skullduggery onto Trump.

Ttbn,

Sorry, I missed that - that the Democrats tried to overthrow their own government and incited rabid Democrat mobs to smash into the Capitol buildings, killing a policeman in the process ?

You might have to provide some details :)

Joe

No! It was attempted sedition! And there was a crime inasmuch as he asked a governor to create illegal or cancel legal votes!

Some of that organised mob even wanted to gas elected representatives as they were in the escape tunnels. They apparently knew which doors to seal? And only prevented by a handful of heroic police officers using their bodies to wedge the doors open?

The former President was videoed as he urged the organised right-wing mob to march on Capitol Hill! With the aim to steal power and ensconce himself as a dictator?

As for the ability of the man to accrue billions?

That borrowed and tax evaded money was patently purloined and blown in subsequent deals that have all gone south? Six times bankrupt does not suggest a brilliant strategic capitalist or somebody with any financial literacy!

You can do better, Graham, than suck up to this narcissistic, power-junkie, control-freak!

Let the plain as the nose on your face, evidence, condemn or exonerate him! And let the spin doctors take a day off!

Really, Graham, I believe, it's a blessing your Mum is no longer here to read some of the garbage you've written lately.
Alan B.

Joe, don't bother, it's a waste of time. ttbn will find his facts from the place he got the last lot, his homeland, planet X?
Cheers, Alan B.

It wasn't a coup attempt. I'm surprised anyone thinks it was. I'm damned sure the Democrat leadership know it wasn't. The persecution of Trump and Trumpism isn't about punishing insurrection. Its about politics by other means.

They have three aims:

* to deflect from the first month or two of the Xiden administration and assaults on democracy being waged by the DNC.

* to continue to hold Trump up as a bogeyman for the TDS crowd. After all, Xiden offers and offered nothing except that he wasn't Trump. Without Trump around playing Emmanuel Goldstein to the Dems Big Brother, the fact that Biden has nothing to offer would become blindingly obvious to even the dimmest of Democrat black-shirts.

* the Dems remain terrified of a Trump comeback. His support from Republicans remains unchanged and that will only increase as the Democrat agenda is revealed eg Keystone Pipeline. He still has the support of his 74 million voters (actually more than that, but 74 million votes counted) and that will solidify as more and more evidence mounts that the election was stolen (anyone read the Time Magazine revelations?). So the best result for the Democrats is that Trump be banned from running again, even if he wanted to. It seems they won't get their wish.

david f write: "There is the matter of truth. According the decision of the courts there was no evidence even to judges appointed by Trump that the election was not a free and fair election."

Well that's what the media is tell us, and they wouldn't lie, would they?

In fact cases raised by Trump or Trump associates have been rejected by the courts, not because the evidence was lacking or unconvincing, but because of jurisdictional issues. For example the case bought by Texas and other red states against Pennsylvania et al, wasn't rejected because the evidence was lacking (if you read their brief it was compelling) but because of "lack of standing". The evidence wasn't examined at all.

But the Trump-hating media says, and the Trump-hating readers believe, that the case and all similar cases fell due to evidence. It didn't.

Just accepting what you've been told to believe is not unusual. But its not hard to look up these cases and find the real reason they were rejected by the courts.

Additionally, the case for seeing that the election was stolen doesn't rest on hand-in-the-cookie-jar style proof. Again, go looking for the evidence and its there in abundance. At the very least go check the Time Magazine article where the globalists effectively admit to a conspiracy to overthrow Trump.

Funny internet meme doing the rounds:

What's the dumbest conspiracy theory of the last 4 years?

That conservatives, many of whom are ex law enforcement or ex military and most of whom have been stockpiling weapons and ammo for the last 50 years, would try to take Capitol Hill unarmed.... while taking selfies.

.....as he urged the organised right-wing mob to march on Capitol Hill!
Alan B,
I'd like to see that footage. I've seen plenty of inciting hate speech by the venom lady but not from the orange head chap.

Mhaze,

They DID take the Capitol buildings. They WERE armed. Trump squibbed it, and didn't show, after urging them to 'fight like hell', so they folded their tents and went home. They're only a bunch of violent low-intelligence kids, after all.

Followers of a violent, low-intelligence rich kid who, for once, didn't get his way.

Joe

Hitler's attempt at a coup in 1923, the beerhall putsch, was a comic opera affair. Ten years later he was fuhrer of Germany.

More from the 'no evidence the election was stolen' file.

A county in New Hampshire had to do a recount based on a request from a Democrat who lost by just 24 votes. The original count was done by running the ballots through the Dominion Voting machines - the ones at the centre of electoral fraud claims.

After the new hand count was done, it was found that EVERY republican candidate in the county had had his/her vote under-counted by approximately 3%. The Dominion machines had under-counted every single republican vote.

It was a small county and inconsequential in the scheme of things. But it seems that every time the votes have been checked where Dominion machines were involved, its found the republicans were dudded.

And that's just from hand counts. Imagine if the ballots were properly audited. They haven't been and, if the Demcrats and never-Trumpers have their way, they never will be properly audited. I'll leave you to ponder why.

VIDEO PROOF TRUMP INCITED THE MOB, 6 JANUARY

Here is the full video of the Capitol riot played by prosecutors, 2 days ago, at Trump's impeachment trial http://youtu.be/cypjAI8uLso?t=1s

2 days ago Democrats opened Trump's second impeachment trial by showing the graphic video (above) of the attack on the Capitol Building/Congress. This came soon after Trump, then-president told his supporters to "fight like hell"

against his election defeat.

The 13-minute video starts with (necessarily parts of Trump's 10,000 word, 1 hour) speech to fans near the White House on January 6 during which he told them,

"we are going to walk down — and I'll be there with you — we're going to walk down to the Capitol".

It then shows clips of Capitol police being overrun by the mob, members of Congress being rushed away, a police officer screaming as he was attacked, and the death of Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, who was shot when she tried to climb through a broken door.

She was one of five people who died during the riot, while hundreds more were injured.

Trump was also shown in a clip from later in the day, when he told the insurrectionists to "go home, we love you".

The video ends with a screenshot of a message Trump posted on his now-deleted Twitter account on the afternoon of January 6.

"These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously [and] viciously stripped away from great patriots ... go home with love [and] peace," he wrote.

After the video finished, Congressman Jamie Ruskin, who is serving as the House of Representative's impeachment manager, pointed to the screen.

"That's a high crime and misdemeanour," he said.

"IF THAT'S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENCE, THEN THERE'S NO SUCH THING."

See the official video again http://youtu.be/cypjAI8uLso?t=1s
_____________________

NOTE

No evidence is going to convince OLO's Trump supporters that Trump incited the mob.

.

Dear Graham,

.

Like your previous article, this one is also a deeply passionate plea in favour of Donald Trump (alias Captain Ahab).

I don’t think any fair-minded person would deny that by putting the boot into a certain number of anthills Donald the dictator produced some positive results. But the fact is, having observed him as president for four years, the Americans electors decided they did not want to grant him the second term he clearly felt was his due.

As you rightly indicated: “he can often appear chaotic”. That particular character trait undoubtedly played a major role in his downfall. It explains his inability to properly organise and manage the nationwide coronavirus battle. It also explains the botched “coup” on Capitol Hill.

Trump is Trump. He is a real-estate man, a wheeler-dealer. He excels in negotiating. He is a great dealmaker, an “impact player” as we say in rugby (a player whose participation is brief but massive), a “blitzkrieg” (“lightning war” in German), a “coup de poing” (“punch” in French).

His organisational and management abilities are mediocre to say the least. His employee relations are disastrous. He hires and fires with alacrity, retaining only the “yes” men – as long as they do their job to his satisfaction.

In addition, Trump has proven to be politically divisive, lacking in tolerance, never attempting to accommodate those Americans he considers to be political opponents. Personality-wise, he is also markedly cleaving, openly treating women in a degrading fashion, grudgingly defending and rarely promoting people of colour. Apart from those of his supporters who would never admit it, he is also widely renowned around the world as a pathological liar and a narcissistic megalomaniac.

As a 74-year-old aspiring to re-election in four years’ time, there is little hope of any improvement that might possibly make him more qualified for the job when he reaches the age of “Sleepy old Joe” today.

As they say : “it’s difficult to teach old dogs new tricks”.

Alas, Donald Trump (alias Captain Ahab) seems determined to continue his eternal vendetta :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWuqvImuedg&list=RDDWuqvImuedg&start_radio=1&t=3&ab_channel=Mr.Smile

.

I saw that video that Plantagenet linked, but did you notice the pause
where he says we are going down to the capital a short break.
In the one I saw he said "peaceably" at that point.

I do not think you can believe anything now.
The evidence of the "steal" disappeared immediately the site computers were turned off. It would be interesting to look at the log files, if
they have not been deleted.

Dear GrahamY,

Simple questions mate. What do you think would have happened of the mob had got their hands on Pelosi, Cortez of even Pence?

Do you think those with ill-intent on their minds would have acted in the way they did without Trump's call to action?

Good Onya Banjo Paterson

You sum up this Trump dipwad well. Republicans were so scared of this Casino owning (and losing) Mafioso that they didn't even ditch him over "grab them by the pussy[gate]".

Now Trump has promised legitimately appointed Republican Congress-people that his band of extremists will Get Them if they openly appear disloyal to Donald the Dick-tator.

Trump continues to rule a supine Republican Party by fear.

Lets hope enough Republicans absent themselves from the Senate on Impeachment Vote Day to give "Impeach Trump" the 2/3rds majority vote necessary.

The Trump some OLO'ers love so much, doesn't know or care where Australia is

or whether "Prime Minister TRUMbull" still rules.

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/malcolm-trumbull-is-there-any-greater-insult-for-the-prime-minister-20170203-gu4vok.html

Still waiting on Plantagenet to post that link showing Trump telling the crowd to go down, overthrow the government and install him as dictator...or something. It must be there since Plannie et al seem so sure that an insurrection occurred and was incited by the Orange Man. OTOH maybe its all bollocks.

Meanwhile the Democrat case for those claims is so bad that they've now resorted to doctoring tweets and making up claims about what the Orange Man said (yes, they admitted it). But the leftist flying monkeys will ignore that and, if they read the right media, won't even be aware of it.

"What do you think would have happened of the mob had got their hands on Pelosi, Cortez of even Pence?"

Well, despite what she initially claimed, AOC wasn't even in the building so that wasn't gunna happen to her.

Let's remember that, as far as we know today, not a single person was injured at the hands of the so-called rioters. No one. The only person who suffered violence was a protester executed for reasons unknown.

Meanwhile the Dems continue to lie and fabricate their 'evidence' having now been forced to admit it. That shows how strong their case is ie not at all.

In other news, evidence for a rigged and stolen election just keeps mounting up. The media is having a hard time suppressing it but they continue valiantly.

OH and one other thing I forgot to mention....

It seems that the FBI is looking into evidence that the riot was pre-planned at least several days earlier by groups as yet unknown.

That'd be rather 'inconvenient' for the assertions that it was the speech wot-done-it.

So of course, the FBI will hid that information until after the trial has finished. After all, they've done it before,in the first impeachment trial, when they hid information which would have been favourable to Trump .

Dear mhaze,

You insanely claimed:

“Let's remember that, as far as we know today, not a single person was injured at the hands of the so-called rioters. No one. The only person who suffered violence was a protester executed for reasons unknown.”

FFS! What on earth are you talking about? So the policeman who died of his injuries after being struck in the head by a fire extinguisher doesn't count?

Or this?

“The physical toll on officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack by a pro-Trump mob is becoming clearer, with reports by police officials and federal prosecutors indicating that about 140 officers were injured, the head of the Capitol Police officers' union said.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/police-union-says-140-officers-injured-in-capitol-riot/2021/01/27/60743642-60e2-11eb-9430-e7c77b5b0297_story.html

Trump Derangement Syndrome writ large from you as always.

SR raves :"FFS! What on earth are you talking about? So the policeman who died of his injuries after being struck in the head by a fire extinguisher doesn't count?"

Well as usual SR falls for the story that he most wants to be true and doesn't bother to check its validity. After all, if you want it to be true, then it is.

Here are the facts (here's a link to a definition of fact to help SR... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact )...

The initial claim was that Sicknick had died from blunt force trauma from a fire extinguisher. This has been discounted because 1) the corner found no evidence of blunt force trauma
2) Sicknick had spoken to his brother after the events and said he was fine.

Sorry SR but what you want to be true, isn't. Not that that'll worry you.

At the moment it is believed he died from " exposure to a chemical agent, possibly pepper spray or bear spray" but evidence for that is also lacking. There are stories that the man had pre-existing medical conditions.

Since the authorities are 'mum' on all these issues, you can assume you're being played. But then, if you want to be played.....

Dear mhaze,

The full autopsy results are still to be delivered in the
Sicknick case it seems and more than happy to acknowledge there might not have been a fire extinguisher involved in his death.

But you conveniently have failed to address the other injuries to officers I posted.

Hopefully you aren't about to claim a police officer wasn't hit in the head with a fire extinguisher because there is clear evidence of it as well as a prone officer being beaten with a flag pole.

The only way anybody could claim there were no injuries was for them to be able to consider law enforcement less than human.

You made an idiotic claim which has become a bit of a norm for you young fella hasn't it.

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

« Still waiting on Plantagenet to post that link showing Trump telling the crowd to go down, overthrow the government and install him as dictator...or something. It must be there since Plannie et al seem so sure that an insurrection occurred and was incited by the Orange Man. OTOH maybe its all bollocks »
.

In the animal kingdom, mhaze, it is the smartest and the strongest that get to the top of the heap. Donald the dictator is one of them. Otherwise, he would never have become president of the United States.

Donald the dictator is as smart as a monkey, as cunning as a fox and as deceptive as a praying mantis. Ruse and guile are his principal arms . By employing carefully coded pseudo-military signs and language he assembled his gullible troops and sent them to accomplish his wanton criminal misdeeds.

There is nothing particularly original about that. No doubt you are aware of Sun Tsu, the ancient Chinese military strategist (544- 496 BC) and his book “The Art of War” in which he explains how to win a war without fighting. It is a strategy that has been employed on various occasions, not only by military leaders, but also by political leaders as well as leaders of industry, commerce and many other major organisations and professions down the ages.

Charles Manson employed it when he incited his followers to commit a series of murders in 1969. The Los Angeles County district attorney believed that Manson intended to start a race war. He convicted him of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of seven people, including the film actress Sharon Tate. The prosecution contended that, while Manson never directly ordered the murders, his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy.

It seems to me that a parallel could be drawn between the responsibility of Charles Manson and that of Donald the dictator in respect of the grave criminal accusations brought against them. Both were instigators of crimes in which they did not participate directly themselves.

.

I saw a video of that attack on the policeman.
It certainly looked like a fire extinguisher.
It was red and round, not good video but good enough.

Thanks for the article Graham Y.

It seems Sicknick being a Trump supporter was also against a Trump impeachment- but was honored after his death by Democrats and was friendly with Pelosi Communications Advisor- Caroline Behringer.

These are interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Sicknick

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/01/08/capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick-who-died-veteran-war-critic/6595549002/

Not sure about this headline...

http://www.unitedpatriotnews.com/general/what-the-left-is-ignoring-about-slain-capitol-police-officer/

CM,

So ....... Democrats tend to be more compassionate than Republicans, even for stricken Republicans - is that's what you're suggesting ?

Have you seen the light ?

Joe

Hiya mHazy

Your thought processes are typically Trump - not caring.

Note what I said at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=21308&page=0#376109

"No evidence is going to convince OLO's Trump supporters that Trump incited the mob."

Watch the video http://youtu.be/cypjAI8uLso?t=1s until you grow a soul or at least a brain.

POSSIBLE CHARGES ON A STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL AGAINST TRUMP THUG

Good news for the forces of justice and humanity:

There are already two criminal investigations into Trump happening at the state level.

- One in GEORGIA relates to Trump pressuring Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger via a now-infamous phone call to overturn the election results.

- NEW YORK state is broadening an ongoing investigation of Trump, honing in on allegations of financial crimes in Trump's many business ventures.

On a LOCAL level, there are already dozens of lawsuits in the works, as well as at least two known criminal investigations related to his business dealings.

Some crimes can yield PRISON TIME and and can render him INCAPABLE OF HOLDING ANY OFFICE IN THE US.
______________

We can only hope this TRUMP THUG gets his just deserts, in the next 3 years.

ie. before this THUG can run for office again in 2024.

Hi Pete,

Then there's Michigan, where Trumpf incited the mob to lynch the Governor.

Plenty of legs in this whole story :)

Joe

Oh brother, all this subjective and ideological babble, with little or no actual material facts or anything of worth for that matter.
Instead, how about this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5QesBp2gfA

These guys have discovered data, which is non partisan.
I have been discussing and debating Trumps position in all this from even before he began campaigning, with a US forum.
I have been on this particular US forum for many years, longer than OLO, if memory serves.
I have always said, it was not VOTER fraud, that would be too hard to pull off, it'd be like herding cats.
No I always felt that there was some fraud, there always is, but it's usually small and insignificant, so not worth pursuing.
This time they were after blood.
The scum behind this size and scale of fraud would only be possible from the wealthiest and therefore, most powerful people in the world.
They made sure there was no evidence left behind this time, and that's why they can't find any.
Now that the old fart is safely ensconsed in the Whitehouse, they have let go of the reigns, because I assume that no matter what they find now that old moron can't be removed.
But Georgia isn't done yet, they have ordered a forensic analysis of the Dominion machines, and so have several other states.
I know now this whole thing was orchestrated and fraudulently manipulated to achieve a Biden win.
The left did not do anything fraudulent or wrong, it was the elite scum, the "king makers", who have renamed, rebadged their evil and self serving agenda, and is now marketed as; THE GREAT RESET!

.

The most spectacular event that occurred last night was not the result of the vote. That was a foregone conclusion. It was what occurred on the senate floor immediately following the vote.

After having announced he would vote acquittal, signaling to all the republican senators to do likewise, the senate republican leader, Mitch McConnel and 42 other republican senators did exactly that. They voted to acquit Donald the dictator of all responsibility in the Capitol Hill insurrection.

Then, in his concluding speech, less than half an hour later, the senate republican leader declared, to the utter stupefaction of everybody all around the world watching, that Trump’s conduct on January 6 was a “disgraceful dereliction of duty”.

He declared :

« There’s no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day, which left five people dead, US Capitol Police officers injured, and parts of the building damaged. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president » :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oTgnwVDQ7I&ab_channel=CNN

In hindsight, I found that the incredible gaffe that Mona Salama (one of the House democrat impeachment managers) had made at the end of her speech, during the trial, was resonating in my mind like an omen of what was to come :

« … he [Donald the dictator] must be convicted and acquitted ! » :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6YtbnMqTJ8&ab_channel=BreitbartNews

The senate republican leader’s speech came as a bombshell. It was incredible and left us all reeling.

It soon dawned on me that I had just witnessed the lack of courage and moral degenerescence of the US Republican party, the so-called Grand Old Party. It was no longer the GOP. It had become the GOCP – the Grand Old Communist Party – blindly supporting its leader, Donald the dictator, just as the Communist party supports Vladimir Putin in Russia, Xi Jinping in China and Miguel Díaz-Canel in Cuba – no matter what they do.

The US Republican party was no longer a republican party.

What an outcome !

This truly is an historic event.

.

.

Mitch McConnell explained that he (and his republican colleagues) voted the acquittal of Donald the dictator because former presidents are “constitutionally not eligible for conviction”.

Their reason for acquittal was obviously in complete contradiction with the result of the vote that had taken place in the senate at the beginning of the impeachment trial.

The Senate had affirmed the constitutionality of holding an impeachment trial for a former president by a vote of 56 to 44 before deciding to proceed with the trial of Donald the dictator.

Mitch McConnell, the senate minority party leader, and his Republican colleagues, therefore transgressed the result of the democratic vote of the senate by voting to acquit Donald the dictator on the grounds that he was “constitutionally not eligible for conviction”.

A non-democratic decision by the GOCP (Grand Old Communist Party), ex-GOP !

Here is an article in TIME on the constitutionality of the impeachment trial :

http://time.com/5937757/impeachment-trial-constitutional-vote/

.

Banjo,

There were a number of flaws in the second impeachment trial of Trump mainly:
-There was no real house inquiry, and neither was the Trump party appraised of any of the "evidence" to be presented against him which is a massive breach of protocol,
-The impeachment was overwhelmingly partisan,
-Impeachment was intended to remove a sitting public officer not a retired one,
-The legal threshold for incitement requires that Trump directly ask for the capitol to be stormed. While his language was inflamatory, at no point did he do this.
-Much of the evidence the Democrats presented involved selectively edited video and tweets which if presented in a trial would result in the prosecution lawyer's disbarment.
etc.

The impeachment was a political not legal trial and as such was doomed to fail. It has also set the bar so low for impeachment, that Biden could see himself on trial as soon as the house becomes Republican.

I feel part or most of the problem people like LM and plannie have in understanding how they've been led down the garden path here is that they deliberately, actively ensure they don't see both sides of the issue.

Watch this fellas, its only 2 minutes. I know that the Time article I've been touting is, for you guys, a case of TL;DR but 2 minutes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNMtyoSibG4

Plannie, who thinks the correct translation for "fight like hell" is "let's overthrow the government" will be particularly interested in the part that starts at 55 seconds. Well not interested but he will have to spend a few days un-remembering it.

Plannie wrote: ""No evidence is going to convince OLO's Trump supporters that Trump incited the mob."

And that's precisely what he offered ....no evidence.

But then he wasn't alone there. The Democrats had so little evidence that they had to manufacture lies to try to bolster their BS case.

Hi Joe

TRUMP THUG escaped justice over the Capitol Storming due to most Republican politicians being too afraid of opposing Trump publically. Such Republican politicians have a well-founded fear that Trump's followers, who have long memories, will GET THEM!

I therefore suspect that Republican politicians in GEORGIA and MICHIGAN

will be too afraid to vote against Trump over his cheating and inciting.

I think it will be down to non-politicians in NEW YORK

who can most effectively prosecute Trump over his tax and other financial sins.

See

"criminal and civil investigations into his businesses are accelerating in New York.

Manhattan prosecutors probing Trump’s real-estate business for possible insurance and tax fraud have stepped up witness interviews in recent months and hired forensic accountants, four people familiar with the criminal probe told Reuters. A separate state attorney general’s civil probe into whether the business falsely reported property values got a boost on Jan. 29, when a New York Supreme Court judge ordered the Trump Organization to turn over documents...."

MORE at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-investigations-insight-idUSKBN2A91CS

Dear McHazy

I've consulted the Great Democrat in the Sky.

He/She dubs thee:

a "Tool Repeating Uttering Meaningless Phrases (TRUMP)"

Cheers :)

Dear McHazy

CORRECTIVE. I sell thee short, mon ami.

Looking skyward I've further consulted that Great Old Democrat (GOD).

He/She gives thee a choice. You be:

1. a "Tool Repeatedly Uttering Meaningless Phrases (TRUMP)"

OR

2. a "Troglodyte Repeatedly Uttering Meaningless Phrases (TRUMP)"
__________________________

Which the be McHazy?

Very mature Plantagenet. Do you always become this deranged when proven to be deranged?

Meanwhile SR will be thrilled to learn that the NYT has retracted its story about the police office being killed by a fire extinguisher.

Doesn't it piss you off when the facts refuse to align with what you want to be true.

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

« There were a number of flaws in the second impeachment trial of Trump … »
.

Of course, shadowminister, nothing is perfect, but I can’t say there were any major “flaws” that would have had a significant influence on the course of the senate impeachment trial, given the extreme gravity of the charges.

That's as it may be, but I am sure you are disappointed with the way the American conservative party members have conducted themselves over the past few months. These have been very trying times for us all.

It is at times like these that the true value of individuals comes to the surface – with some surprising results. Right now, the GOP is in the eye of the storm and it has no choice but to batten down the hatches.

There is no sense in trying to find excuses for its behaviour. The GOP must do some soul searching and remind its members of its core values and the importance of upholding them at all times and in all circumstances, come what may and whatever the cost.

It must face up to reality and do whatever is necessary to set things right – with courage, honesty, firmness and determination.

I find it difficult to imagine the GOP maintaining Donald the dictator in its midst, given the severe condemnation of the role he played in the Capitol Hill insurrection, expressed by Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the senate, after having voted his acquittal at the impeachment trial.

Hopefully, the party will stand behind their senate leader and not let themselves be bullied and intimidated by Donald the dictator continuing to delude himself as permanently possessing 74 million votes. Nobody is the perpetual proprietor of anybody else’s vote.

We shall have to wait and see what happens during the next few weeks.

Whatever the outcome, there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that America needs a strong and upright conservative party just as much as it needs a bold and dynamic progressive party.

.

Banjo, why do you and so many others keep abusing and insulting Trump. ALL the attacks and explanations attempting to make him something he is not and has never been, a traitor.
So please, like all the crappy media who insist on making the news, by exaggerating, lying even, about what Trump said and did.
Enough already, the guy may be a few bricks short of a garage, but you and your ilk, who keep lying and badgering him and his actions and words, are much worse.
Those who conduct themselves like the media and yourself, lack honesty and integrity.
What you and the rest of these pillocks are doing is no different to what he has been continually accused of.
For example, I find those with terret syndrome, extremely annoying, and yes I make fun of them given the right situation.
They can't help it, and yet, I still make fun of them.
Well Trump is no different.
I know what I am doing is not socially acceptable, and yet I still do it.
I feel that neither you nor anyone else is in a position to know exactly what is going on in govt, nor in his head.
So before you end up looking as stupid and foolish as the rest of the Democraps, I might suggest backing off on any negativities against Trump, unless you yourself have personally been a witness to or party to whatever slagging you feel the need to impart on or about him

Banjo,

In a normal trial, every one of these "flaws" would have been fatal to the prosecution trial. The simple fact that what Trump said did not meet the legal definition of incitement would be a major factor.

That I think Trump is narcissistic bore has nothing to do with the fact that this was a political show trial that failed.

Already some Republicans are saying that the bar for impeachment has been lowered to the point that Congress can impeach Biden and the only obstacle to this is getting a majority.

Hi Banjo,

Two-thirds of the Senators were required to vote for conviction. Only 57 did so. 57 %.

I wonder if any of those crowing about Trumpf getting off, also considered the 52 % of the British vote in favour of Brexit to be quite reasonable ?

Yes, yes, different jurisdictions, requirements, processes, etc., etc. But I suppose, for people without principle, a win is a win, no matter how.

So incitement the dregs of society against one's own government, in order to stay in power, although common in sh!thole countries, now is 'freedom of speech'. Orwell would be chuffed.

Joe

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

You complain about all the criticism of Donald the dictator on OLO.
.

Don’t worry, ALTRAV, you can rest assured that the criticism on OLO is the least of his worries.

I understand Donald the dictator is now facing several state and federal judicial investigations into his presidency and his role in the insurrection on Capitol Hill.

In addition, tonight, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that Congress will establish an independent, Sept. 11-style commission to look into the deadly insurrection that took place at the U.S. Capitol.

Pelosi indicated that the commission will “investigate and report on the facts and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex … and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power.”

Maybe they’ll all find that Donald the dictator did nothing wrong, ALTRAV, and end up acquitting him, but he’ll probably have to spend some of those $275 million he pocketed from his gullible followers to prove it.

I doubt that he’ll spend any of it to get them out of jail for “trying to stop the steal”.

I suggest you just skip anything to do with Donald the dictator on OLO if it disturbs you. There's lots of other interesting subjects to comment on here.

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

If you’d like to send me precise details of the five “flaws” you listed in your previous post together with the relevant references so that I can check it all out, I’ll take a look at it and get back to you just as soon as I can.

But I’ll have to ask you to be patient as I’m going to be pretty busy this week.

Thanks.

.

When the prosecution has a strong case, they don't need to fake evidence or hide evidence.

The Dems did both those things, demonstrating conclusively that their case had no basis in fact.

They made claims that certain words and phrases were proof of incitement. Then when video was shown of they themselves using those same words and phrases to rally the base, they pretended not to notice - much like the TDS crowd here, especially plannie and LM, are trying to do. When it was pointed out that they'd photoshopped a tweet to make it more compelling, they just stopped talking about it. When they altered the date on some exhibit to imply it applied to the riot when it was in fact written in 2020, they showed how weak their case was.

Evidence gets manufactured in show trials in totalitarian nations. Of course, if the Dems have their way, that is what the US will become.

They pretended grief over a policeman 'murdered' by the mob all the while knowing that wasn't true. (it reminds me of Clinton feigning grief over those killed in Benghazi and promising revenge while all the while knowing that the deaths were her fault). Only after the show trial was concluded did they start to admit that he died from other causes. (it reminds me of the fact that only after the election did they start to admit that their calculations as to WuFlu deaths was flawed, or fraudulent).

The funniest part for me was when they decided to call witnesses in the belief that that'd finally get the orange man. Then when they found out that the Republicans would call Pelosi and Harris and require that they answer truthfully (a novelty for them) under the threat of perjury, they couldn't drop the idea quickly enough.

So the orange man survives yet again. It is way more likely that he'll be a presidential candidate in 2024 than Xiden, and that gives him plenty of time to start to weed out the rats in the ranks.

Banjo, the Dems are just scum, and they will lie, cheat, bully, threaten and basically do anything they want, to get their way. Now as for that filthy, lying, evil, slag of an ugly skank of a dog, Pelosi, well I would be very proud to be the one to drive a road train over her, and as is customary, TRY, to reverse back over her. She is one vial, rabid, rancid Cruella de-Ville's twin sister. What a disgusting, petulant, hag. I can't stand her, and seeing her carry on like some kind of virtuous saint is just untenable. If she is the best example of the Democraps, then I now fully understand that they are a mentally deranged, mentally ill mob. Now remember one thing, that exonerates Trump. And that is, that what happened at Capital Hill on the 6th, was no more than a walk in the park, compared to the mayhem, death and destruction the Dems have unleashed on innocent people, not a govt building, which some could argue belongs to the people anyway, no innocent people and their property, burned, looted, vandalised. The Dems are real thugs and morons, so why in hells name did/don't we hear about all that truly dangerous antics by the Dems? That bitch Pelosi has never even hinted a word of apology or remorse for the devastation caused by the Dems, which has been a million times worse that the incident of the 6th.
At least Trump did try to calm things down, even though HE did or said NOTHING to do with the actions on the 6th.
So I'd like to see Pelosi choke on her words as I and the rest of the world look on.

Banjo, Plant,

The 2 fatal flaws in the arguments of the prosecution are:

1 - The for speeches or statements to meet the legal definition for the crime of "incitement" the main requirement is that there is a clear and unambiguous instruction to commit a particular act. That at no time did Trump instruct anyone to attack the Capitol building means that this has not been met. That the Democratic "prosecution" spent hours trying to convince senators of Trump's intent at the time is clear evidence that they had failed.

2 - Much of the "evidence" presented by the Democrats rested on clips of his speech that were edited (segments spliced together) to convey a message that neither existed nor was intended. In a court of law, the lawyer doing this would lose his license.

3, 4, 5 are procedural issues such as not providing the defence with any evidence prior to the proceedings etc.

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

Your last post looks like a cocktail of hate, frustration and paranoia, ALTRAV. You shouldn’t get carried away like that. It’s not good for your blood pressure. You’ll end up having a heart attack.

I suggest you take a break or maybe do some physical exercise. If not, ask the doctor to give you something to calm you down.

The “scum, the lying, the cheating, the bullying, the threats, the filth, the evil, and the ugly skank of a dog” that you see are not in the “Dems” and Nancy Pelosi.

As somebody wisely pointed out : “beauty is in the eye of the observer”. The poison, the hate, the frustration, the paranoia, and all those other things you see, ALTRAV, are too.

I sincerely hope that you will realise, someday, that the image you are projecting on the world is preventing you from seeing it as it really is.

It's much more nuanced than you make it out to be. It’s a kaleidoscope of unique individuals of all shapes and sizes, colours and cultures, with different characteristics, qualities, defects, talents and skills, idiosyncrasies, natures, desires, ideas, opinions, beliefs, ideals, ambitions and aspirations.

The world and the people in it are not just all white or black, good or bad, male or female, conservative or progressive. They’re a mixture of all that and more. Life is an evolutionary process from the cradle to the grave and from generation to generation. Nothing is static. The person we are today is not the person we were yesterday nor the person we will be tomorrow.

Putting people in little boxes with labels on them is simplistic. It makes no sense. It’s a warped, outdated, static view of life.

It’s wrong to deny people’s humanity and individuality and their ability to evolve and change.

Even you can change, ALTRAV – if you want to.

I hope you do want to and I hope you do change.

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

Just saw your post and will try to get back to you on that tomorrow.

.

Banjo, I applaud your attitude to life and people.
BUT!
I must be a very sensitive and aware person, than most.
I don't look at the cover.
I look beyond, and what I find, more often than not, is NOT what we are told.
I am not gullible or easily swayed by "snake oil salesmen", such as ALL those who try to attain positions of high office.
And in life, one of those positions is to be the head of a country.
Your attitude is a very "warm, cozy and comfortable" one, but let me make you aware of one very important fact, and that is, we are being taken advantage of at every turn and opportunity, and across everything we touch or come into contact with.
Especially, and mainly, where we are paying money.
Another way of looking at it is, that because of "nice" people like yourself, the rest of us are subjected to abuse and theft on a daily basis, because you obviously have very Christian and high moral standard.
So you can see how it is absolutely impossible for "The meek to inherit the earth"!
It is the filth, the scum, the vial and generally garbage that will inherit the earth, and now, us with it.
I draw everyone's attention to this old scam that has been slowly gaining momentum, and will enslave us all if we don't attack it with force, especially those promoting it;
THE GREAT RESET!
Now I caution everyone to not just gloss over this, because this is worse than all the terrorist attacks and wars in recent history, and is perpetrated and promoted by the same people responsible for all previous mass losses of life globally.
You will be well advised to take heed on this and look into it yourselves, and when you do, just remember the underground of previous wars, because that's what it will come to, unless people actually reject the RESET at the outset.

Until Mitt Romney crossed the floor in a vote to impeach during the last hearings no senator had gone against party lines to do so before.

This time there were 10.

Extraordinary, and a serious indictment against Trump to anyone with half a brain.

SR,

There were 7, not 10.

Trump was acquitted.

SR,
You're right, "anyone with half a brain".
Well finally, we now know why you fall short, as often as you do.
I always knew I had a "whole" brain, and that's why I am able to consider and speculate things that are not in the public domain or mainstream attitudes. I can always rely on the plebs and those with half a brain to foolishly posture over or about irrelevant topics and ideologies.

10 senators?

Try Seven.

Still struggling with those darned numbers.

And if you look at the seven, you'll see why Trump and his supporters will wear the enmity of the seven as a badge of honour. These are people who never signed up to MAGA and never supported Trump or his 70 odd million voters.

Crossing the floor was a godsend for Trump and a harbinger for the end of their careers. Most have already been censured by their relevant state bodies

Mhaze,

"These are people who never signed up to MAGA and never supported Trump or his 70 odd million voters."

Neither did the 80 odd million Biden voters.

That's democracy. Get over it.

Joe

Loudmouth, irrespective of your opinions of myself, I have always held you in higher esteem and regard than most of the plebs on OLO.
In saying this, I am curious as to why you have not seen through the BS that has been continually thrust at trump, to the point that it would qualify for a conviction of harassment, and more, against the aggressors.
I have always known him to be a bit of a "child" in many ways. Spoilt, petulant, you know what I mean.
But one thing he was not, was devious, conniving, evil and a host of other unsavory traits that this current old doddering fool of a "YES MAN", is.
Surely you can see that Biden exposed his arrogance and lying, scheming ways, when he took office and proceeded to do exactly what he said he wouldn't do, and all that before his arse even touched the Presidential chair.
Anyone mature, curious and worldly enough to look into things rather than follow the sheeple, who BTW are being led by the scum, with mis-information, or exaggerated and false information, will at the very least come away with a lot of questions.
At best they will learn the truth behind this anti-Trump campaign, and why.
So far my research has led me to the WEF, and then to the door marked; THE GREAT RESET!

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

The free online US legal dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary, indicates the following definition of the term “incite” :

« To arouse; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as, to “incite” a riot. Also, generally, in criminal law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with “abet.” .See Long v. State, 23 Neb. 33, 30 N. W. 310. »

The Farlex free online US legal dictionary, West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2, provides the following definition :

« To arouse; urge; provoke; encourage; spur on; goad; stir up; instigate; set in motion as in to incite a riot. Also, generally, in Criminal Law to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; in this sense nearly synonymous with abet »

You claim that :

« … to meet the legal definition for the crime of "incitement" the main requirement is that there is a clear and unambiguous instruction to commit a particular act »

You did not indicate the source of information that justifies your claim. Would you kindly do so ?

In my post of Saturday, 13 February 2021 5:17:16 AM, I cited the following case in law :

« Charles Manson … incited his followers to commit a series of murders in 1969. The Los Angeles County district attorney believed that Manson intended to start a race war. He convicted him of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of seven people, including the film actress Sharon Tate. The prosecution contended that, while Manson never directly ordered the murders, his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy »

I added :

« It seems to me that a parallel could be drawn between the responsibility of Charles Manson and that of Donald the dictator in respect of the grave criminal accusations brought against them. Both were instigators of crimes in which they did not participate directly themselves »

If you are aware of cases that contradict this principle, would you please provide the references ?

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Also, in my post on Monday, 15 February 2021 12:59:12 AM, I quoted the senate republican leader, Mitch McConnell, who declared on the senate floor, less than half an hour after having voted in favour of the acquittal of Donald the dictator :

« There’s no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day, which left five people dead, US Capitol Police officers injured, and parts of the building damaged. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president »

All this seems to indicate that a clear and unambiguous instruction to commit a particular act is not a “conditio sine qua non” for incitement to apply in the eyes of the law.

Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, shadowminister, I am inclined to think that proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” based on circumstantial evidence is sufficient to legally establish “the crime of incitement”.

Your second point, that “much of the "evidence" presented by the Democrats rested on clips of his speech that were edited (segments spliced together) to convey a message that neither existed nor was intended”

That may be so, shadowminister, but it could also be argued that Donald the dictator’s defense team presented a similar type of evidence themselves.

As for the procedural issues you mention (points 3,4 and 5), such as not providing the defence with any evidence prior to the proceedings etc., these were decried and repeated several times during the trial by Pat Cipollone who led Donald the dictator’s defence team.

Cipollone rebuked the Democrat impeachment managers for late communication of documents they should have provided before the trial began, but did not press the point any further. He left it at that, apparently considering that it was an indisputable breach of procedure, but did not have a determining influence on the final outcome of the impeachment trial.

.

Banjo,

Trying to compare the actions of a murderous cult leader to a speech by Trump is simply farcical. To quote:

Inciting to Riot, Violence, or Insurrection
Criminal incitement refers to conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection.

But what about First Amendment protections? How does the law determine when speech crosses the line from protected advocacy to incitement of violence?

The First Amendment: Brandenburg v. Ohio
Court decisions stress that democracy cannot stand if speech or conduct disagreeing with the government is criminalized—even when that speech advocates unpopular beliefs, condones racism or suggests the use of force.

In a seminal case involving a Ku Klux Klan leader, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a KKK leader’s anti-black, anti-Semitic, and anti-government comments were protected speech, even those comments that suggested taking future “vengeance” (sic) on the federal government.

To cross the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech, the Supreme Court held the speaker must intend to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and the speaker’s words or conduct must be likely to produce such action. These requirements are known as the Brandenburg test. (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).)

Applying the Brandenburg Test
Cases applying the Brandenburg test stress just how high the bar is set before the government can criminalize someone for advocating dissent or violence.

First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot (whether or not it actually occurs). Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard. Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action. Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973).)

LM,

Sorry but you utterly missed the point - as usual viz. Reichstag fire and feudalism.

We were talking about the internal Republican issues of members voting against Trump. So the alleged Xiden voters are entirely beside the point. I wonder if you'll understand that?

"Neither did the 80 odd million Biden voters."

Well sleepy Joe most definitely got 80+ million votes. But, given what we are increasingly finding out about the rigging of the election, that doesn't mean he had 80 million voteRs.

When I say that we are finding out about the rigging of the election I of course don't include you in that. To find out about it you'd need to want to know and many don't want to know.

__________________________________________________________________

Banjo,

The Manson murders aren't the least analogous to the Capitol riots. Manson specifically told his cultists to go to Polanski house and kill those inside - he just got mixed up as to who was there. Not only did he tell them to do it but he told them how to do it and provided the weapons.
And then the next night he specifically drove the killers to the murder site and participated in subduing the victims before leaving with instructions as to how to murder them.

Equating that to the Capitol riots is just perverse.

Mhaze,

When it comes to " .... finding out about the rigging of the election .....", the US courts don't seem to want to either. Perhaps for the simple reason that any such claim has not been backed up by the slightest evidence.

I think I'm starting to twig how some of you hicks claim to 'argue' issues:

* ADD TOGETHER: ASSERTION 1 + ASSERTION 2 + ASSERTION 3 ....... = UNASSAILABLE CONCLUSION.

REPEAT AS OFTEN AS YOU LIKE.

Brilliant. I'll have to give that a go.

The problem of course is that every one of your assertions is free of evidence. And as we all know, asseritur gratis, negatur gratis.

I'll wait for a reputable US Court to declare some fraud somewhere in relation to these elections.

Joe

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

I’m pleased to see that we’re beginning to have a civil, mutually respectful discussion.

I note that you consider you have the good fortune of having been endowed with natural attributes of insight into human nature and are a very (overly?) sensitive person.

That, I am willing to believe, ALTRAV, and, if you don’t mind my saying so, I also find you highly emotive. In short, you are a combination of acute intuitive insight, raw sensitivity and ill-controlled emotivity.

And as I’m sure you are aware, ALTRAV, the challenge is to harness all that pent-up energy and channel it into something positive, creative – non-destructive – and, as I am also sure you are aware, you don’t always (nor often) succeed.

It’s a pity. I, personally, have been enlightened by the posts of many of the participants on this forum over the years. Not always directly, more often indirectly. The exchanges allow me to bounce my ideas off the minds of others, modifying, rectifying, up-dating, completing, enriching, reformulating, and, sometimes, changing them completely.

Unlike you, I do not seek to penetrate into the intimacy of the inner minds of my interlocutors and fathom their secret motivations. I do not doubt that they may have some, but that it is not the centre of my interest. I come here for facts, ideas and experiences which I submit, as far as possible, to rigorous empirical examination and verification.

I do my best to stick to facts and reality (that which exists independently of ideas concerning it). Interpretation, belief and opinion come second. Truth (information that has not been voluntarily deformed) comes third. Personal motivation of source comes fourth.

I enjoy mutually respectful discussions here on OLO with no ad hominem remarks nor any form of discrimination. I am comfortable with my inherited Christian culture but do not believe in the god hypothesis that goes with it.

If the “Great Reset” of Davos is to “Build a Better World”, what makes you think it will have the adverse effect ? Imposition by force is not on the agenda.

.

LM,

If you refuse to hear a tree fall in the forest, it doesn't mean it didn't fall.

If you refuse to look at the evidence, that doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.

I've provided you with links to articles where those who rigged the elections admitted it, indeed gloried in it.

I've provide evidence that machine counting deducted votes from republicans.

I've explained that courts haven't rejected evidence or found it faulty. They have just refused to look at for procedural reasons.

I've provided evidence of counties refusing to allow audits on their machines and counting for obvious reasons.

Just today we find that Michigan, where the margin was 150K removed 170K names from their rolls due to them being dead or no longer in the state. At the moment we don't know how many of these dead voted but we do know that generally Xiden had a large lead among the dead.

I've provided evidence that counting was halted in some jurisdictions for invalid or manufacturd reasons and that after that Xiden sudden had 100s of 1000s of extra votes.

And all that's before we even get into the issue of the media deliberately lying to help help sleepy Joe.

And much more.

None of this is going to sway courts who are anxious to find any reason to avoid the issue.

But its beyond bizarre that people who spent 4 years believing that the Russians swung the election to Trump despite zero evidence and indeed evidence to the contrary, now suddenly demand 110% proof.

Its almost as though they are irredeemably biased and incapable of seeing anything that doesn't confirm their prejudices.

Speaking of which...LM constantly harps on his evidence-free claim that Trumps caused all the claimed US WuFlu deaths. I wonder what he makes of the new evidence of the culpability of Cuomo in the extraordinary death rates in nursing homes in NY.

Or is it another case of the evidence not existing if you refuse to see it.

Loudmouth, is it a bridge too far, to imagine that there could ever be such a thing as voter/election fraud?
If we accept that the idea or concept is possible, then it is merely a question of finding out how it was done and how large was the fraud.
Only one group knows the truth, and they will never say.
So it leaves us with speculations.
BUT!
As it turns out, evidence of fraud has slipped through the cracks, and I have seen them.
Some of which I have bookmarked, the rest I have merely committed to memory.
Joe, there is too much at stake, and those responsible are wealthy and powerful enough to ensure that no trace of fraud is left behind.
So unless election fraud is an absolute impossibility, then the chance of it happening cannot be denied or dismissed.
I agree that it's a huge undertaking, and that even the hand recounts SHOULD confirm the numbers and be seen as the correct result.
BUT!
We are not privy to the machinations of such events as the American voting system, and as one of my video's shows, it is open to and vulnerable to malfeasance.
My submission is simply about whether or not the idea of election fraud was/is possible or not.
I find for the affirmative, as hard as it may be for people to accept, but that's life!

Altrave,

Was fraud possible ? Of course. Was it found ? No.

End of.

I love the idiocy of that "the absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence" argument. To me, it's a bit like saying "Well, no, you can't see a bridge over the river there, but there actually is one, so keep driving."

I think I'd rather wait until I saw something that looked like a bridge.

The courts are the proper vehicles for processing claims of voter fraud. So far, not one Court has ruled that there was fraud.

So, just possibly, there was no fraud.

End of. Your dumb-arse mob lost. Common-sense and Biden on. Move on. Cop it.

Joe

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

« Trying to compare the actions of a murderous cult leader to a speech by Trump is simply farcical. To quote:

Inciting to Riot, Violence, or Insurrection

Criminal incitement refers to conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection »
.

I did not “compare the actions of a murderous cult leader to a speech by Trump”.

Firstly, it is interesting to see that you presume that Manson was, indeed, “a murderous cult leader”, although, like Donald the dictator, he constantly maintained his innocence (all his life) and was only condemned on the basis of the prosecution’s contention that “while Manson never directly ordered the murders, his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy”. The Los Angeles County district attorney believed that Manson intended to start a race war.

It is also interesting to see that the definition of “criminal incitement” you now indicate does not stipulate that “the legal threshold for incitement requires that Trump directly ask for the capitol to be stormed” as you asserted in your post of Monday, 15 February 2021 9:44:02 AM (flaw N° 4).

Secondly, I compare “the actions” not of a “murderous” cult leader, but of a cult leader “condemned for incitement to murder” – not to a “speech” by Trump but to “the actions” of Trump.

As I noted in a previous post, Donald the dictator is as smart as a monkey, as cunning as a fox and as deceptive as a praying mantis. Ruse and guile are his principal arms . By employing carefully coded pseudo-military signs and language he assembled his gullible troops and sent them to accomplish his wanton criminal misdeeds. He had been courting them, encouraging them, and preparing them (instructing them to “stand back and stand by”) months before unleashing them on the legislative branch of the American government that was about to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election.

This was not just a speech, shadowminister, it was a carefully planned, prepared and executed ...

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

... strategy to “steal the election” from Sleepy old Joe if he won it – which he did.

I am surprised that a political observer such as yourself does not appear to be aware of all that.

You cite the First Amendment of the US Constitution – presumably in relation to Donald the dictator’s speech to the huge crowd of supporters he assembled in front of the White House on 6 January 2021, the day the Congress was due to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Here is the text :

« Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances »

To the best of my knowledge, but correct me if I am missing something, the Congress has no intention of making any law to “abridge the freedom of speech” of Donald the dictator (or anyone else, for that matter).

As for Brandenburg v. Ohio and the so-called “Brandenburg Test”, this was largely debated during the impeachment trial. According to Wikipedia :

« The Brandenburg test remains the standard used for evaluating attempts by the government to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969. Very few cases have actually reached the Court during the past decades that would test the outer limits of Brandenburg. The most significant application of Brandenburg came four years after in Hess v. Indiana »

Hess v. Indiana :

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/414/105/#tab-opinion-1950471

Judgment :

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/414/105/#tab-opinion-1950470

Lesson to be drawn from Hess v. Indiana :

For Donald the dictator to be punished for “inflammatory speech”, prosecution must prove the words he used were directed to a specific person or group and there is evidence that they were intended and likely to produce imminent disorder.

I think we agree on the legal criteria for conviction.

But that is something neither you or I can decide.

.

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

« … Manson specifically told his cultists to go to Polanski house and kill those inside … the next night he specifically drove the killers to the murder site and participated in subduing the victims … »
.

There are several versions of what happened and who did what, mhaze. That is one of them.

“Time” published an article in 2019 indicating :

« A half-century after Tate’s death, there remain plenty of myths and theories about why Manson’s followers carried out the murders. One of the biggest questions is the extent to which Charles Manson himself was involved, and why »

According to James Buddy Day, a true-crime TV producer and author of the book Hippie Cult Leader: The Last Words of Charles Manson, “everyone involved in the crimes had a slightly different take on what happened”.

Day conducted several interviews with Manson while he was in prison serving a life sentence, and noted :

« There are so many people involved in the Manson story, not one of them can say what really happened. No one was making decisions for the whole group »

One of the people who offered Day a version of the story was, of course, Manson, who maintained his innocence until his death. “I didn’t have nothing to do with killing those people,” he told Day in a phone call. “They knew I didn’t have anything to do with it.”

Manson’s own version was that his followers orchestrated the whole thing, and he was only involved in a passive way.

After all the time spent talking to Manson, Day believes his version is close to the truth, but concludes :

« I think there’s no question Manson is culpable for those murders … [they] would not have happened without him ».

I, personally, find it significant, mhaze, that the prosecution contended that, while Manson never directly ordered the murders, his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy.

They obviously could neither prove that Manson had ordered the murders nor that he had participated in them.

.

Banjo,

It would help if you were more literate. The following excerpts from the above are not subtle:

1 - First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot. Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard.
2 - Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action.
3 - Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence.

1 - There is no "proof" that Trump intended to incite violence in fact he specifically called for non-violence. Your claim that "By employing carefully coded pseudo-military signs and language" is pure conjecture and/or fantasy.
2 - Trump's speech created no road map for the attack and did not mention the capitol building
3 - At no stage did Trump appeal for violence.

Finally, your comparison to Manson is at best childish and at worst moronic. His cult members lived with him and took his word as law. That you pretend to take Manson's claims as gospel shows a high level of mendacity.

Loudmouth, please, I've always given you much credit for being one of the voices of reason, here on OLO.
Even more than myself.
BUT!
You cannot deny that fraud dose happen, and in this case we are now learning each day, of more and more evidence coming to light.
I know the anti-Trump pundits did a stellar job on the sheeple, in convincing them that Trump was to be admonished and vilified, and so it came to pass that that's what the sheeple did, and no end of logic and proof to the contrary was going to be entertained, irrespective of his obligations and achievements for the people and his office.
He did things, that on the face of it, seemed at odds with public sentiment, (not all) but upon reflection and in hindsight, we now see that his reasoning was justified, at least where it counted.
You ask "was fraud possible"?
You incorrectly assumed, and wrote, NO!
Well as it always turns out, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and in saying that, the answer is a very irrefutable YES!
I have previously posted just one of the videos confirming this fact, and here it is again below;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5QesBp2gfA

As a follow up to this, the Georgia Govt has ordered a forensic investigation into the Dominion machines and their suspected role in the Georgia vote "flips".
So you see Joe, things are never quite what they seem nor expected to be.
That's why I am the guy who asks the awkward, sometimes, ridiculous questions, in search of the truth, and not just accept what I'm told.
In fact I would say I have a healthy (and justified) dislike for people, (the sheeple) because they are too easily led and controlled.
It seems that virtue shaming and PC are the new norms.
Well, not as far as I am concerned, and I will continue to seek out the truth, even though the sheeple don't want to hear it.
I get push back from those who know absolutely NOTHING about the topics.
The only question remains is, HOW BIG WAS THE FRAUD?

Banjo, please stop fantasising.
You're starting to worry some here on OLO.
How you can even begin to take a "manchild" and TRY to sell him as some kind of public enemy number one, is beyond even the most imaginative playwriters reach.
I have previously given a fair and balanced description of trump and his psyche, and nowhere in all this was any evidence of a an evil, murderess, conniving man, quite the opposite in fact.
I have described him as a petulant child, a show off, an extremely proud man.
He did not enter politics to become POTUS, he did it to stick it up Obummer and other the "children" who bullied and picked on him in the playground.
He wanted to prove something, and he did, in grand fashion too.
I have never given a thought to his personality flaws, as they only showed us that he was a "normal, healthy, male", unlike the filth and evil snake oil salesmen before him, and now, after him.
You and anyone attacking him because of his personality and character flaws, are yourselves guilty of extreme prejudice and bias.
You are all being too emotional and narrow minded.
All previous POTUS's were much worse than Trump, only they hid it well and only exposed and put on their virtuous and saintly act to win over (con) the sheeple into believing they were honest, God fearing individuals, "just like them".
It's a shame that history is mostly based on LIES!

Just a quick follow-on.
This guy explains it exactly as I have done and believes in the same reasoning as I do.
I bookmarked him, because he echoed me so very closely, all you have to do is super-impose me instead of him, and that would be me in my own pod-cast, saying exactly what he is saying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej-Da4RiITQ

Dear mhaze and shadowminister,

Thank you for the correction as it illustrates my point even further. It was 10 Republican members of the House who voted to indict Trump and 7 members of the Senate voting to convict thus making it I believe the most bipartisan impeachment on record.

How does this help your case?

SR, you seem to gloat in quoting the obvious.
There is a word for that, but I won't say for fear of you running off to report me, as it seems by now, you are quite expert at.
I'm sure there are a few other OLOéns who would be very pleased to know this little known fact.
But please do continue to be picky and petty highlighting, inane or simple human errors.
Or is it that you are one of the adjudicators on OLO?
Because you have ALWAYS acted as one.

SR,

Then it was a bipartisan acquittal falling far short of a conviction.

Dear shadowminister,

Or rather a bipartisan majority who vote for a conviction.

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

There is no doubt that those three safeguards you indicate in your last post should be considered minimal precautionary conditions for qualifying Donald the dictator’s actions as constituting “criminal incitement”, i.e. :

« Conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection »

I would even go further and add a fourth safeguard : there should be at least one credible eyewitness to the alleged criminal actions of the accused.

Of course, in the case of Donald the dictator, there are numerous eyewitnesses and real-life videos of the coded gests and messages he sent to his followers during the months leading up to the storming of the Capitol that resulted in the deaths of seven people, looting, ransacking and damage to the buildings and furniture.

It seems to me that a parallel could be drawn between the role played by Donald the dictator (the US president) and that played by Charles Manson (a white supremacist), in the particularly violent events which resulted, in each case, in the death of seven innocent people, though 50 years separated them and they occurred on opposite sides of the continent.

Neither Donald the dictator nor Charles Manson participated personally in the events that led to the deaths nor did they give specific orders for them to be carried out. Nevertheless, the events and the deaths would not have occurred without them.

In the case of Charles Manson, a jury of seven men and five women convicted him in the Los Angeles County Court in 1971 for the death of seven people (including the film actress Sharon Tate) – despite lack of proof that he had ordered the murders or participated in them.

The prosecution contended that “while Manson never directly ordered the murders, his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy”. The Los Angeles County district attorney believed that Manson intended to start a race war.

Donald the dictator could find himself in a similar position if criminal charges are brought against him.

That would be for the jury to decide.

.

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

You wrote :

1. « Banjo, please stop fantasising … How you can even begin to take a "manchild" and TRY to sell him as some kind of public enemy number one, is beyond even the most imaginative playwriters reach »
.

No problem, ALTRAV …

In 2016, 62,984,825 Americans took that “manchild” and made him president of the United States of America. The playwriters haven’t recovered from that shock yet ! It literally blew their minds away. It was way beyond anything they could have possibly imagined !
.

2. « This guy explains it exactly as I have done and believes in the same reasoning as I do » :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej-Da4RiITQ
.

I could have said that too, ALTRAV, but not just about Sleepy old Joe – about Donald the dictator too ! – and every other leader of every country in the world, ever since the world began, and as long as it continues to exist !

.

SR,

14% of Republicans do not make it bipartisan. Trump was acquitted, it was all in vain. Live with it.