Judge asks why Trump was silent during riot

[HenryChinaski]

Trump's potential liability for Capitol riot faces major test in court

A federal judge in Washington, DC, questioned former President Donald Trump's actions during his speech on January 6, 2021, as he considers for the first time whether Trump is immune from liability related to his supporters attacking the US Capitol.

www.cnn.com

During a court hearing Monday, Judge Amit Mehta pointed out repeatedly that Trump on January 6 asked the crowd to march to the Capitol, but that he didn't speak up for two hours asking people to stop the violence.

"The words are hard to walk back," Mehta said. "You have an almost two-hour window where the President does not say, 'Stop, get out of the Capitol. This is not what I wanted you to do.'"
"What do I do about the fact the President didn't denounce the conduct immediately ... and sent a tweet that arguably exacerbated things?" the judge asked. "Isn't that, from a plausibility standpoint, that the President plausibly agreed with the conduct of the people inside the Capitol that day?"

He was silent because he was too busy watching and re-watching the riot with glee. This has already been established. He got off on it.
Mods the thread title changed when I pasted the link.

 

[tres borrachos]

Trump's potential liability for Capitol riot faces major test in court

A federal judge in Washington, DC, questioned former President Donald Trump's actions during his speech on January 6, 2021, as he considers for the first time whether Trump is immune from liability related to his supporters attacking the US Capitol.

www.cnn.com

He was silent because he was too busy watching and re-watching the riot with glee. This has already been established. He got off on it.
Mods the thread title changed when I pasted the link.View attachment 67368517

The judge must know what we do, which is that Trump was watching the events with enthusiasm, getting all hot and horny watching those freaky idiots who support him scream to hang the VP and break into the Capitol while carrying the flags of Confederate traitors. He didn't want them to stop. He loved every sick minute of it, including when that moron Babbitt gave her life for him. He probably got a massive hard on when that happened.

 

[j brown's body]

He wasn't completely silent. He did tweet to the rioters that Pence had betrayed them.

 

[Common Sense 1]

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”


It is common for political leaders to call for protests at the federal or state capitols when controversial legislation or actions are being taken. Indeed, in past elections, Democratic members also protested elections and challenged electoral votes in Congress.


The fact is that Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”


Trump also stated: “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy…And after this, we’re going to walk down – and I’ll be there with you – we’re going to walk down … to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”


He ended his speech by saying a protest at the Capitol was meant to “try and give our Republicans, the weak ones … the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.” Such marches are common — on both federal and state capitols — to protest or to support actions occurring inside.



Moreover, if Trump is not legally responsible for the riot, he is not legally responsible for waiting to call for the rioters to stop. What the Committee would need is evidence that Trump actively withheld resources or obstructed efforts to quell the riot. Thus far, the record shows that refusal of a large national guard deployment was refused on Capitol Hill and not at the White House.

What Ever Happened to the Prosecution of Donald Trump for Incitement?

This is the one year anniversary of the disgraceful rioting in the Capitol building. The scenes of that day are seared in the memory of many of us. I publicly condemned Trump’s speech while it was …

jonathanturley.org

 

[Mycroft]

Trump's potential liability for Capitol riot faces major test in court

A federal judge in Washington, DC, questioned former President Donald Trump's actions during his speech on January 6, 2021, as he considers for the first time whether Trump is immune from liability related to his supporters attacking the US Capitol.

www.cnn.com

He was silent because he was too busy watching and re-watching the riot with glee. This has already been established. He got off on it.
Mods the thread title changed when I pasted the link.View attachment 67368517

This judge must have been listening to Lying Liz's lies.

 

[craig]

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”


It is common for political leaders to call for protests at the federal or state capitols when controversial legislation or actions are being taken. Indeed, in past elections, Democratic members also protested elections and challenged electoral votes in Congress.


The fact is that Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”


Trump also stated: “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy…And after this, we’re going to walk down – and I’ll be there with you – we’re going to walk down … to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”


He ended his speech by saying a protest at the Capitol was meant to “try and give our Republicans, the weak ones … the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.” Such marches are common — on both federal and state capitols — to protest or to support actions occurring inside.



Moreover, if Trump is not legally responsible for the riot, he is not legally responsible for waiting to call for the rioters to stop. What the Committee would need is evidence that Trump actively withheld resources or obstructed efforts to quell the riot. Thus far, the record shows that refusal of a large national guard deployment was refused on Capitol Hill and not at the White House.

What Ever Happened to the Prosecution of Donald Trump for Incitement?

This is the one year anniversary of the disgraceful rioting in the Capitol building. The scenes of that day are seared in the memory of many of us. I publicly condemned Trump’s speech while it was …

jonathanturley.org

Of course he is legally responsible. He had a duty as President to stop it.

 

[Phys251]

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

For example, the lawless action of 1/06/2021. You said it yourself: Inciting violence is NOT free speech.

 

[Lycanthrope]

If Trump had any credibility here he would have gone public the second things got violent on Jan 6.

"Hey, whoa - what part of 'peacefully' did you numbnuts not understand?"

Instead he sat in the WH and stroked his ego watching riot footage. "Look how they fight for me!"

Idiot.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

There was that whole insurrection thing, you know.

 

[911Sparky]

Trump's potential liability for Capitol riot faces major test in court

A federal judge in Washington, DC, questioned former President Donald Trump's actions during his speech on January 6, 2021, as he considers for the first time whether Trump is immune from liability related to his supporters attacking the US Capitol.

www.cnn.com

He was silent because he was too busy watching and re-watching the riot with glee. This has already been established. He got off on it.
Mods the thread title changed when I pasted the link.View attachment 67368517

My hope is that judge Mehta will get to ask trump that very question someday, while trump is under oath.

 

[911Sparky]

This judge must have been listening to Lying Liz's lies.

The judge just displayed the common sense that some of us lack.

 

[911Sparky]

If Trump had any credibility here he would have gone public the second things got violent on Jan 6.

"Hey, whoa - what part of 'peacefully' did you numbnuts not understand?"

Instead he sat in the WH and stroked his ego watching riot footage. "Look how they fight for me!"

Idiot.

I don't think his ego was the only thing he was stroking, he probably got quite aroused watching the insurrection on TV.

 

[Lycanthrope]

My hope is that judge Mehta will get to ask trump that very question someday, while trump is under oath.

Would be fun to watch even though Trump would lie through his teeth.

 

[Jay Falcon]

Of course he is legally responsible. He had a duty as President to stop it.

Especially since he caused it.

 

[Lycanthrope]

I don't think his ego was the only thing he was stroking, he probably got quite aroused watching the insurrection on TV.

Ack. Some of us would like to eat dinner soon.

 

[Acadia]

This judge must have been listening to Lying Liz's lies.

The judge seems to conveniently forget to mention Trump's directive, clearly, to demonstrate peacefully.
But that's just not shocking at all.

 

[Acadia]

I don't think his ego was the only thing he was stroking, he probably got quite aroused watching the insurrection on TV.

This isn't a thread about CNN anchors abusing themselves on Zoom calls.

 

[CaughtInThe]

is the judge an idiot? everyone knows that Trump wanted the insurrection.

 

[Mycroft]

At least we know this activist judge will be slapped down on appeal if he decides to use his position for political purposes.

 

[venice_ca]

Seems to me that POTUS, whoever it may be, would be concerned for the best interests of the nation, and publicly call for a stop to mob violence at the Capitol as soon as notified of such.

 

[MaryP]

Trump's potential liability for Capitol riot faces major test in court

A federal judge in Washington, DC, questioned former President Donald Trump's actions during his speech on January 6, 2021, as he considers for the first time whether Trump is immune from liability related to his supporters attacking the US Capitol.

www.cnn.com

He was silent because he was too busy watching and re-watching the riot with glee. This has already been established. He got off on it.
Mods the thread title changed when I pasted the link.View attachment 67368517

Everyone forgets the tweets Trump made half an hour after the rioters had gotten into the Capitol, saying:

2:38 p.m.: Trump urges people to "support our Capitol police and law enforcement," and tweets that "they are truly on the side of our country. Stay peaceful!"

3:13 pm he tweets, "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!" Trump tweeted at 3:13 p.m.

Now, things were already not peaceful, but I'd bet you anything Trump feels that covers his ass while he enjoyed the next two hours. By the time he told his supporters to 'stay' peaceful a little after 2:30 pm, both chambers had been evacuated, rioters had broken into the senate chamber through broken windows and doors. One rioter outside had died. I have a feeling Trump was aware of some of this. I don't know if the tv cameras were on the battle outside yet, but probably they were. He would have been getting briefed by security anyway. Certainly, by 3:13, he knew what was happening. "Remain peaceful"? It's like listening to the Mad Hatter.

https://www.newsweek.com/jan-6-capitol-riot-timeline-trumps-first-tweet-speech-bidens-certification-166543

So, while I still think Trump deserves to go to prison for trying to steal the election, it wasn't over two hours before he addressed the rioters. Technically. I just like it to be an accurate story.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The judge seems to conveniently forget to mention Trump's directive, clearly, to demonstrate peacefully.
But that's just not shocking at all.

I don't know if that counts for much considering Trump spent the vast majority of his time making false allegations of election fraud, which he knew would enrage his supporters.

 

[craig]

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”


It is common for political leaders to call for protests at the federal or state capitols when controversial legislation or actions are being taken. Indeed, in past elections, Democratic members also protested elections and challenged electoral votes in Congress.


The fact is that Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”


Trump also stated: “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy…And after this, we’re going to walk down – and I’ll be there with you – we’re going to walk down … to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”


He ended his speech by saying a protest at the Capitol was meant to “try and give our Republicans, the weak ones … the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.” Such marches are common — on both federal and state capitols — to protest or to support actions occurring inside.



Moreover, if Trump is not legally responsible for the riot, he is not legally responsible for waiting to call for the rioters to stop. What the Committee would need is evidence that Trump actively withheld resources or obstructed efforts to quell the riot. Thus far, the record shows that refusal of a large national guard deployment was refused on Capitol Hill and not at the White House.

What Ever Happened to the Prosecution of Donald Trump for Incitement?

This is the one year anniversary of the disgraceful rioting in the Capitol building. The scenes of that day are seared in the memory of many of us. I publicly condemned Trump’s speech while it was …

jonathanturley.org

The most telling thing is that President Trump did not go with them but went to the White House and watched the carnage on TV.

So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.

The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

[lwf]

The judge seems to conveniently forget to mention Trump's directive, clearly, to demonstrate peacefully.

Why would he? The question isn't about whether Trump instructed his supporters to demonstrate peacefully, it's why he didn't say anything when they didn't. This speaks to his intentions regardless of what he said.

 

[Anthony60]

Trump's potential liability for Capitol riot faces major test in court

A federal judge in Washington, DC, questioned former President Donald Trump's actions during his speech on January 6, 2021, as he considers for the first time whether Trump is immune from liability related to his supporters attacking the US Capitol.

www.cnn.com

He was silent because he was too busy watching and re-watching the riot with glee. This has already been established. He got off on it.
Mods the thread title changed when I pasted the link.View attachment 67368517

I guess the crowd was just a bunch of robots that were going to do an about face the second Trump issued orders through his control box, in the middle of the chaos. "Rescind Order 66!" They didn't listen to him when he asked that they "go peacefully", and they were not listening to anyone when they got there.