What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place (4 Viewers)

The position is that Trump gave them marching orders, just like a military general would.  His lieutenants reiterated those marching orders.  Thats the rub as I understand it.
They were planning the attack for months on Facebook (not Parler).   You are saying Trump gave orders on Facebook months ago?

Or are you referencing something during his speech that day?  Because the protesters started in at the capitol before the speech had even ended.

 
So many questions to answer in this trial.  Dems jumped the shark by just putting in a single charge of inciting violence.  They should have searched around for another phone call they didn't like or something.  

 
So many questions to answer in this trial.  Dems jumped the shark by just putting in a single charge of inciting violence.  They should have searched around for another phone call they didn't like or something.  
The phone call to Raffensberger was more indefensible and impeachable.

"I just want to find 11,780 votes."

 
The position is that Trump gave them marching orders, just like a military general would.  His lieutenants reiterated those marching orders.  Thats the rub as I understand it.
They were planning the attack for months on Facebook (not Parler).   You are saying Trump gave orders on Facebook months ago?

Or are you referencing something during his speech that day?  Because the protesters started in at the capitol before the speech had even ended.
Well, Im not saying anything except explaining the position.  The position is that Trump has been building on election fraud since 2016.  So I guess the answer to your question is "yes".

 
And a serious note...has anyone heard from @Max Power  

Is this a moderated thing...or did something happen to him?  He has not posted since the 5th and had talked about going to the rally in DC.  Hoping he didn't get caught up in stuff there.
Lol, yeah I'm good. I stayed away from the trouble. 

I've just had extra work and family keeping me busy lately.

I do appreciate the concern though. 

 
Serious question and no reason to go off

but I have been wondering, can the family of the deceased (especially of the policeman) bring a civil suit against trump?

surprised we don’t hear much talk on that

 
The position is that Trump gave them marching orders, just like a military general would.  His lieutenants reiterated those marching orders.  Thats the rub as I understand it.
They were planning the attack for months on Facebook (not Parler).   You are saying Trump gave orders on Facebook months ago?

Or are you referencing something during his speech that day?  Because the protesters started in at the capitol before the speech had even ended.
This is a fair question. If an average person had made the same speech at the same time in the same location, he could have easily met the threshold of "reasonable doubt" to beat the incitement rap.

But Trump's status was unique. He had access to some of the planning (either through direct contacts between his staff and rioters, or though his ability to monitor social media posts), and he helped to arrange for the Capitol to be underprotected by security. Then, when his supporters started to attack the police, he refused to call for more police (despite having the power, if not the authority, to do so), and instead went on national TV to tell the violent mob that their attacks were actually peaceful, that he loved them, and that they were special.

So, to pose your question in different manner: Trump knew, or should have known, that they were planning the attack for months? And he didn't demand more security? And he did the speech anyway? And he still urged his own supporters to march on a Capitol that he had helped to weaken? And then he refused to unequivocally condemn their behavior?

It may not meet the criminal code's definition of "Incitement", but it does meet a moral definition of being unfit for office. Trump didn't incite his supporters to start a fire; he just made sure that there was lots of tinder and that the sprinklers were turned off, then he winked at his supporters as the fire burned.

 
Serious question and no reason to go off

but I have been wondering, can the family of the deceased (especially of the policeman) bring a civil suit against trump?

surprised we don’t hear much talk on that
This is a good question (except for the "especially" part). I'd be interested to hear the lawyers weigh in.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
Well, Im not saying anything except explaining the position.  The position is that Trump has been building on election fraud since 2016.  So I guess the answer to your question is "yes".
Wow, if you can draw that conclusion then Bernie should be impeached for inciting the guy that shot Steve Scalise.  You remember what he said don't you?  And Kamala should be impeached for raising bail and giving the green light for all the BLM/Antifa protesters.  

 
Well, Im not saying anything except explaining the position.  The position is that Trump has been building on election fraud since 2016.  So I guess the answer to your question is "yes".
Wow, if you can draw that conclusion then Bernie should be impeached for inciting the guy that shot Steve Scalise.  You remember what he said don't you?  And Kamala should be impeached for raising bail and giving the green light for all the BLM/Antifa protesters.  
Who is "you"?

 
This is a fair question. If an average person had made the same speech at the same time in the same location, he could have easily met the threshold of "reasonable doubt" to beat the incitement rap.

But Trump's status was unique. He had access to some of the planning (either through direct contacts between his staff and rioters, or though his ability to monitor social media posts), and he helped to arrange for the Capitol to be underprotected by security. Then, when his supporters started to attack the police, he refused to call for more police (despite having the power, if not the authority, to do so), and instead went on national TV to tell the violent mob that their attacks were actually peaceful, that he loved them, and that they were special.

So, to pose your question in different manner: Trump knew, or should have known, that they were planning the attack for months? And he didn't demand more security? And he did the speech anyway? And he still urged his own supporters to march on a Capitol that he had helped to weaken? And then he refused to unequivocally condemn their behavior?

It may not meet the criminal code's definition of "Incitement", but it does meet a moral definition of being unfit for office. Trump didn't incite his supporters to start a fire; he just made sure that there was lots of tinder and that the sprinklers were turned off, then he winked at his supporters as the fire burned.
:tinfoilhat:   That's as crazy as the Qanon stuff.  Can't wait to see this play out in the faux trial.  You just went from Trump inciting the riot to Trump should have known about the riot for months.  Not sure I've seen goalpost moved that far in one leap before.

 
:tinfoilhat:   That's as crazy as the Qanon stuff.  Can't wait to see this play out in the faux trial.  You just went from Trump inciting the riot to Trump should have known about the riot for months.  Not sure I've seen goalpost moved that far in one leap before.
What do you mean by "faux trial"?

 
:tinfoilhat:   That's as crazy as the Qanon stuff.  Can't wait to see this play out in the faux trial.  You just went from Trump inciting the riot to Trump should have known about the riot for months.  Not sure I've seen goalpost moved that far in one leap before.
I've been consistent in my belief that Trump's actions didn't meet the criminal definition of incitement. His actions prior and during the riot were much more complex than that.

We know that Trump's staff was in contact with the riot planners prior to the speech. We know that Trump had access to their social media accounts. The problem with using "They were planning for months!" as a deflection, is that it opens to door to new questions: What did Trump (and/or his staff) know, and when did they know it?

With any other president, there is a vetting process with this sort of thing, just to make sure that the White House isn't coordinating with anyone who might be planning to commit a crime. Did the White House run any background checks this time? Or was there a certain level of deliberate ignorance so that Trump could claim "plausible deniability" if anything nefarious happened? Perhaps the trial will shed more light on that.

Prior to his speech, Trump told Capitol police that, based on his knowledge, their security measures would not be enough to deal with his supporters, yet at no time did he actually request that security be increased. Why not? Again, perhaps the trial will shed more light on that. In any case, when a leader instructs his followers to descend upon a building that has been weakened, in part, by his own decisions, then it's a sign that the leader is not respecting the interests of the state, and he's no longer fit to lead.

 
It's not unconstitutional. The Senate has had impeachment trials for people who already left office. If I were to ask John Roberts, he'd probably just say that Tony is lying and that I should just put him on ignore.
Its so faux that the head of the supreme court, the guy that is supposed to rule over impeachment trials by law, said nah not going to happen.  lol, Dems weren't expecting that. 

 
It's not unconstitutional. The Senate has had impeachment trials for people who already left office. If I were to ask John Roberts, he'd probably just say that Tony is lying and that I should just put him on ignore.
Its so faux that the head of the supreme court, the guy that is supposed to rule over impeachment trials by law, said nah not going to happen.  lol, Dems weren't expecting that. 
The head of the Supreme Court is honoring the Constitution by strictly interpreting what the meaning of "is" is.

The irony of this talking point is that the chief head justice apparently believes that the trial would be unconstitutional if he did preside over it.

 
Its so faux that the head of the supreme court, the guy that is supposed to rule over impeachment trials by law, said nah not going to happen.  lol, Dems weren't expecting that. 
Ummm why do you think he is supposed to?

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/impeachment-senate-patrick-leahy-preside-trump-trial/
"The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents," Leahy confirmed in a statement on Monday. "When presiding over an impeachment trial, the president pro tempore takes an additional special oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws. It is an oath that I take extraordinarily seriously." 

 
The head of the Supreme Court is honoring the Constitution by strictly interpreting what the meaning of "is" is.

The irony of this talking point is that the chief head justice apparently believes that the trial would be unconstitutional if he did preside over it.
Impeachment trial for someone that's all ready out of office?  John Roberts - Nope!   :lmao:

 
Donald Trump lost the White House, the Senate, and the House of Reps.
Should put an asterisk next to all three:

* due to COVID

Once COVID goes away, Republicans will go right back to being the dominant party in this country. The winning formula is there, it just need to be recalibrated a bit. The reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated.

 
Ummm why do you think he is supposed to?

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/impeachment-senate-patrick-leahy-preside-trump-trial/
"The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents," Leahy confirmed in a statement on Monday. "When presiding over an impeachment trial, the president pro tempore takes an additional special oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws. It is an oath that I take extraordinarily seriously." 
Cbs news isn't credible.  Stop.

 
Serious question:  Now they have caught a bunch of the protesters that gained access inside the capitol building, and since corroborated Facebook posts (not Parler) that they had been planning this for months....how was this instigated by Trump? 
FBI now releases video that shows the 2 bombs were planted the night before. And they were found about 90 minutes before the rioters showed up the next day drawing dozens of Capitol Hill police away from their posts.  

So much for the Trump speech inciting the attack. So much for Trump reducing the police away from their posts. 

The only narrative left is that divisive speech emboldened these guys months ahead of time. Dems really want to go there?  Bernie and Steve Scolice, Kamala and Antifa, AOC...Maxine Waters.  If Dems want to say divisive speech is grounds for impeachment get ready for a who's who of divissive speech impeachment trials the next few years. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Should put an asterisk next to all three:

* due to COVID

Once COVID goes away, Republicans will go right back to being the dominant party in this country. The winning formula is there, it just need to be recalibrated a bit. The reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated.
How exactly is it that in your view the dominant party loses the popular vote over and over?

 
FBI now releases video that shows the 2 bombs were planted the night before. And they were found about 90 minutes before the rioters showed up the next day drawing dozens of Capitol Hill police away from their posts.  

So much for the Trump speech inciting the attack. So much for Trump reducing the police away from their posts. 

The only narrative left is that divisive speech emboldened these guys months ahead of time. Dems really want to go there?  Bernie and Steve Scolice, Kamala and Antifa, AOC. If Dems want to say divisive speech is grounds for impeachment get ready for a who's who of divissive speech impeachment trials the next few years. 
Everyone knows the Proud Boys have mastered time travel.  They heard the Trump speech on the 6th and immediately got in their phone booth and went to the 5th to plant those bombs.  

 
FBI now releases video that shows the 2 bombs were planted the night before. And they were found about 90 minutes before the rioters showed up the next day drawing dozens of Capitol Hill police away from their posts.  

So much for the Trump speech inciting the attack. So much for Trump reducing the police away from their posts. 

The only narrative left is that divisive speech emboldened these guys months ahead of time. Dems really want to go there?  Bernie and Steve Scolice, Kamala and Antifa, AOC. If Dems want to say divisive speech is grounds for impeachment get ready for a who's who of divissive speech impeachment trials the next few years. 
Who said it was all about one speech?

 
FBI now releases video that shows the 2 bombs were planted the night before. And they were found about 90 minutes before the rioters showed up the next day drawing dozens of Capitol Hill police away from their posts.  

So much for the Trump speech inciting the attack. So much for Trump reducing the police away from their posts. 
That's as crazy as the Qanon stuff.

Removing the bombs from the equation does not absolve Trump.

 
Nobody. What a weird question.  

I wouldnt compare the FBI to Qanon, but, you do you. 

If you read what I wrote it has nothing to do with actual bomb removal.  
Seems a pretty valid question when you keep acting as if he had not been making comments for months that would have influenced those people...and acting as if bombs planted the night before are proof of...well anything.

 
FBI now releases video that shows the 2 bombs were planted the night before. And they were found about 90 minutes before the rioters showed up the next day drawing dozens of Capitol Hill police away from their posts.  

So much for the Trump speech inciting the attack. So much for Trump reducing the police away from their posts. 

The only narrative left is that divisive speech emboldened these guys months ahead of time. Dems really want to go there?  Bernie and Steve Scolice, Kamala and Antifa, AOC...Maxine Waters.  If Dems want to say divisive speech is grounds for impeachment get ready for a who's who of divissive speech impeachment trials the next few years. 
Saw this earlier, sure did kill all the regular hot takes in here and the narrative they wanted so bad. 

 
Should put an asterisk next to all three:

* due to COVID

Once COVID goes away, Republicans will go right back to being the dominant party in this country. The winning formula is there, it just need to be recalibrated a bit. The reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated.
How exactly is it that in your view the dominant party loses the popular vote over and over?
Republicans occasionally lose the national popular vote for President because millions of red voters in deep blue cities stay home. Take away that one election every four years, and the R party tends to win more than we lose. We hold more governorships, more state legislatures, and more statewide offices overall. That's not going away just because a few people on the fringe are getting some attention right now.

 
Saw this earlier, sure did kill all the regular hot takes in here and the narrative they wanted so bad. 
The narrative is that the President directed his armed supporters to march upon his own Capitol, then he refused to call for more police as his supporters killed a cop, then he refused to fully condemn their violent actions, then he called them "peaceful" and said that he loved them and that they were special.

The chronology of two bombs does not change that narrative.

 
Seems a pretty valid question when you keep acting as if he had not been making comments for months that would have influenced those people...and acting as if bombs planted the night before are proof of...well anything.
You havent read the articles of impeachment have you?  Try page 3 lines 16 to 25 and page 4 lines 1 to 17. That's all about remarks made by Trump on Jan 6th that supposedly incited the riot. 

News Flash: The riot had been planned for months. 

Trump could have only said "go home and play with kittens" and the riot still would have happened.  That part, the biggest part of the charge is going to be laughed out of court. Pelosi and Co. look like a bunch of fools. 

 
The narrative is that the President directed his armed supporters to march upon his own Capitol, then he refused to call for more police as his supporters killed a cop, then he refused to fully condemn their violent actions, then he called them "peaceful" and said that he loved them and that they were special.

The chronology of two bombs does not change that narrative.
You havent read the articles of impeachment have you?  Try page 3 lines 16 to 25 and page 4 lines 1 to 17. That's all about remarks made by Trump on Jan 6th that supposedly incited the riot. 

News Flash: The riot had been planned for months. 

Trump could have only said "go home and play with kittens" and the riot still would have happened.  That part, the biggest part of the charge is going to be laughed out of court. Pelosi and Co. look like a bunch of fools. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You havent read the articles of impeachment have you?  Try page 3 lines 16 to 25 and page 4 lines 1 to 17. That's all about remarks made by Trump on Jan 6th that supposedly incited the riot. 

News Flash: The riot had been planned for months. 

Trump could have only said "go home and play with kittens" and the riot still would have happened.  That part, the biggest part of the charge is going to be laughed out of court. Pelosi and Co. look like a bunch of fools. 
Wait...did I miss something? Has it been confirmed that the bomber coordinated with the rioters? Huge if true.

 
Republicans occasionally lose the national popular vote for President because millions of red voters in deep blue cities stay home. Take away that one election every four years, and the R party tends to win more than we lose. We hold more governorships, more state legislatures, and more statewide offices overall. That's not going away just because a few people on the fringe are getting some attention right now.
Not to mention shotgunning out mail ballots enmasse because of covid scare tactics.  

 
Wait...did I miss something? Has it been confirmed that the bomber coordinated with the rioters? Huge if true.
I think they are narrowing down on the bomb planter still.  But likely, a lot of the rioters caught so far were found to be planning the attack for months on Facebook (not Parler).  

 
You havent read the articles of impeachment have you? 
I have read the articles of impeachment, tyvm.

I think it was a bad move to impeach Trump for "incitement"; he should have been impeached for simply being unfit for office.

But that's neither here nor there. The chronology of two bombs does not absolve Trump of his behavior prior to, during, and after the riot.

 
I have read the articles of impeachment, tyvm.

I think it was a bad move to impeach Trump for "incitement"; he should have been impeached for simply being unfit for office.

But that's neither here nor there. The chronology of two bombs does not absolve Trump of his behavior prior to, during, and after the riot.
Ok. 

But the fact that the riot had been planned for months invalidates all the Jan 6th incitement charges. Poof!  

 
Ok. 

But the fact that the riot had been planned for months invalidates all the Jan 6th incitement charges. Poof!  
In order for your theory to be correct, it must assume that every single rioter participated in the pre-planning on Facebook(not Parler).

And that, my friend, would be as crazy as the Qanon stuff.

 
You havent read the articles of impeachment have you?  Try page 3 lines 16 to 25 and page 4 lines 1 to 17. That's all about remarks made by Trump on Jan 6th that supposedly incited the riot. 

News Flash: The riot had been planned for months. 

Trump could have only said "go home and play with kittens" and the riot still would have happened.  That part, the biggest part of the charge is going to be laughed out of court. Pelosi and Co. look like a bunch of fools. 
If inly the bombs were the inly part of it all...and that these few being discussed were the only ones...and again...when i asked who said it is all about one speech...you called it weird...but now seem to be claiming the articles of impeachment are saying it is.  Is that true?

Or is that only a part of the impeachment?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top