That was my point. What’s yours?
IIRC a bunch of Bernie Madoff’s victims approached prosecutors after he was indicted to plead with them to give ol’ Bernie just a little more time to make good on their ‘investments’. It’s nearly impossible to convince some people that they’re the Mark.
Well, he’s talking about what would be considered “making war on the US.”
My point is, if the Mexican President did what Trump did, the US would be justified in making war on Mexico as a result. Now, that doesn’t mean I’d expect the US to actually make war on Mexico, but they would be justified in doing so.
In life, there’s lots of things we might be justified in doing, but choose not to do, for some reason. If a guy attacked me in a bar, I’d be justified in punching him in the head, but I personally would almost never do that, because I prefer other means for defending myself. But, were the situation such that those other means weren’t viable, I’d be justified in punching the guy.
That’s the way the reality-impaired have always operated. Gold fringe on a flag in court, obvious CGI on moon landing films – when it hadn’t been invented yet, nails found on Mount Ararat, the list is endless.
I heard an anonymous source said that your anonymous source is lying. So they cancel themselves out, using your logic.
You are relying on AN ANONYMOUS SOURCE. Something the right usually rails against. The “source” might be a drunken Rudy G. for God’s sake.
Many people are saying the anonymous source is lying.
Many people.
Fixed it.
A man came up to me the other day - big man, powerful man. “Sir” he said, (with tears in his eyes), “That anonymous source is lying.”
I was moved.
Levying war actually. That’s in the constitution. A planned attempt to overthrow the government with violence fits the bill IMHO.
It’s true that Lincoln pardoned all the confederates from treason.
But I see Trump’s actions as different. As I said up thread, I don’t think the minor actors should be charged with treason. Just the leaders that organized this.
Levying war -
LEVYING WAR, crim. law. The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution.
Bolding mine.
Treason -
the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
Moderating:
I appreciate this discussion arose out of the January 6, 2021, events. And it is a laudable debate to have. But this thread is for the purpose of discussing the hearings, not the finer points of defining Treason. Please remove your debate to elsewhere on the forum. Thanks.
Barely a mod note, and definitely no warnings.
To all: Please try to stick to the topic at least to some extent. A little hijacking is fine, but if you’re getting into the weeds, probably best to start a new thread. Thanks.
I was shocked. When Trump said he wanted to march to the capital, I assumed it was just pure bullshit like everything else he says. He had no intention of doing anything so strenuous or risky, and just wanted to go back to the West Wing and eat chicken and watch it on TV.
I believe the term you are looking for here is “flailing.”
That is certainly a good word for it.
I guess when your side makes literally everything a battle of good and evil, and is forbidden from ever agreeing with the other side on anything no matter what, then you end up picking some really ill advised fights. It’s ok to admit that Trump did bad things in his desperation to hold on to power. This really should be something we can all just agree with at this point.
You’re correct, and I pushed this off topic. I suspect there is a better place to discuses the meaning of levying war as it is in the constitution.
I may start another thread on this.
Thanks for being gracious. I appreciate it.
Anonymous sources can be reliable. But when they aren’t even quoted - and were involved in the Trump administration, where fealty to the leader has always been more important than truth - I’ll maintain my skepticism.
Sure, Donald (and some anonymous toady) say that Hutchinson lost out on a job at Mar-a-Lago.
But I’ll reiterate that:
-
If the story is true, it’s entirely consistent with her recent testimony that she was shocked and disgusted with what happened on January 6. She especially noted how useless her boss was during the emergency. A falling out she may have had shouldn’t suggest an ulterior motive when testifying; if anything, it’s expected given how she saw Trump’s term end.
-
Nobody - either Trump or the anonymous sources - have made any suggestions as to why she was denied the position. No claims of incompetence or examples of mistakes. So to simply say “she wanted a job, and was rebuked, and that’s why she is saying what she’s saying now”, in the absence of some corroborating evidence of dissatisfaction with her performance, is a weak claim.
Is there any documentation that Hutchinson actually applied for a job with Trump at Mar-A-Lago, besides him saying her personally turned down someone he barely knew?
Not that Trump would lie about something, but it would be nice to know since it is being used as a reason to cast doubt on her testimony.
“Woo-hoo!!! That proves Trump is part of the plan to bring about the Second Coming, and then Jebus will return and put all those uppity sluts and queers and groomers and brown people and socialist gun-grabbing race traitors in their place (that place being hell).”
Sadly, that’s probably the mildest the response you’ll get.