"One more time: Can you acknowledge how very evil it is to talk
of putting a political enemy on trial when he's committed no crimes??" ---April 28, 2022 at 3:17 PM
The above was directed to me in a recent post at Dan's blog. My initial response was in the negative. Of course. What could possibly make even a moron believe I would be in favor of such a thing, except for the person asking being a moron? It didn't occur to me at the time, but this very moron voted for the party who does just that and has done that over and over again.
Two impeachment trials for a president who did nothing to warrant such a thing.
Several members of Trump's administration indicted for nothing of any consequence whatsoever, beginning with Michael Flynn.
Several hundred people still awaiting some form of legal action while cooling their heels in a Washington jail over the "insurrection" federal law enforcement said wasn't an insurrection.
And just this week, Peter Navarro arrested for refusing to respond to a Congressional subpoena citing executive privilege.
The left has no problem arresting and trying political opponents. It's what they do. They do it all the time and is one of many reasons we're all the worse off because of all those who refused to vote for Trump in the last election. Everyone of them have greatly harmed the nation and this is merely one of so many ways. Morons every one.
16 comments:
Leftists are hypocritical to the core. They'll use state-sanctioned violence to control their enemies, such as anyone daring to walk through a door held open by Capitol officers or speaking out at a school board meeting, but are often pacifists themselves.
Do you recall which guy used to insist on blogs about how he was a pacifist and wouldn't even intervene physically if someone was assaulting his wife and kids in front of him? The same guy was a pro-abortion extremist, supporting all the Left's policies of taxpayer-funded murder to the child's first breath. I can't decide if that is consistent or not . . . the deplorable pu$$y, who claims the name of Christ, is inconsistent in that he'll support the violent, legal slaughter of innocents, yet totally consistent in that he'll do nothing to help the innocent.
The people who've been arrested have been charged with actual crimes. The people who have been convicted have been convicted of actual crimes. Refusing to testify before Congress/respond to a subpoena is a crime. You don't have to like the law to acknowledge its reality.
Neil,
I'm not sure of whom you're referencing, though I have my thoughts. You can email me if you prefer. It sounds very much like a guy I know who speaks of "the historically oppressed" while supporting the brutal termination of human beings still in the womb, but I've not heard him say he'd do nothing if his wife and kids were being attacked in front of him.
Dan,
Fauci, Holder, Clinton...they've all been accused. Whether or not they were arrested has nothing to do with whether or not they've actually committed the crimes with which they are accused. This is what you refuse to recognize. There have been millions of cases of innocent people arrested, convicted and sentenced to one punishment or another who were not actually guilty of true crimes. History is rife with examples of leftist governments engaging in such atrocity. Why leftists don't get the same treatment is because they don't face assholes when they commit their crimes. They face those who respect the rule of law, not abuse it to further their political ends, as we're seeing with the Kangaroo Jan 6 committee, which was assemble contrary to House rules.
Eric Holder cited the same executive privilege we're seeing now with Peter Navarro, with the exception that a federal judge/court ruled Holder had no such privilege in his case. He still refused to abide the subpoena, yet because he faced a better class of people, he did not suffer as Navarro has thus far. Whether Navarro will face a similar ruling remains to be seen. But in the meantime, his arrest constitutes an abuse of power by your party. There was no cause to put him in wrist and ankle shackles at an airport when he already let the feds know he's literally nearby ready to comply with a standard procedure. That is, he lives literally feet from the FBI building and they could have walked to his house and he would have followed them without any need for cuffs. You're a partisan asshole who doesn't care about the rule of law, long-held protocols or ethics. That's added to your rank dishonesty and oppression.
Marshall, I think you may be on the right track.
Several hundred people still awaiting some form of legal action while cooling their heels in a Washington jail over the "insurrection" federal law enforcement said wasn't an insurrection.
I don't really care whether the storming of the capitol on January 6, 2021, met the dictionary definition of "insurrection." Anyone who planned, incited, or participated in the attack is guilty of undermining the Constitution of the United States. Anyone who defends their actions is clearly not on the side of the "the rule of law."
Vinny,
By all accounts, the disturbance at the Capitol on Jan 6 doesn't meet ANY definition of "insurrection". That's just a word your party has chosen to further falsely indict Trump and anyone who supports him. It's a clear abuse of congressional power for political purposes. So far as anyone has been able to prove, there was nothing more than plans to go to the rally, to go to the Capitol and to appeal to congress to refrain from counting Electoral votes until credible allegations of election fraud were properly addressed, rather than blown off like the bulk of them were. I support all of that. I don't defend what it became, though I'm not going to pretend that it was not incited by those NOT supporting Trump, nor that it couldn't have been prevented by Pelosi who chose not to avail herself of 20,000 troops authorized by Trump for the purpose...which was the extent of his authority.
In the meantime, these assholes known as the Dem party...plus total dickheads like Cheney and Kinzinger...are engaging in a fraud of a hearing, assemble contrary to House rules for the express purpose of attacking a political opponent who had incredible support for re-election. This is no more than another manifestation of their abuse of power and disregard for the rule of law. The greatest threat to the nation is not any mythical "white supremacy". It's the Democratic Party. Anyone who defends their actions is clearly not on the side of the United States of America.
I don't defend what it became, though I'm not going to pretend that it was not incited by those NOT supporting Trump, nor that it couldn't have been prevented by Pelosi who chose not to avail herself of 20,000 troops authorized by Trump for the purpose...which was the extent of his authority.
So you are going to pretend that it was incited by those not supporting Trump? And you're going to pretend that the Speaker of the House has authority over the National Guard?
I was wondering what unhinged lies about the attack on the Capitol you embraced. Thanks for making that clear.
"So you are going to pretend that it was incited by those not supporting Trump?"
How can you actually ask this after actually quoting me?
"And you're going to pretend that the Speaker of the House has authority over the National Guard?"
I'm going to recognize she plays a role in Capitol security, and Capitol security sucked under her watch on Jan 6. The buck, as they say, stops with her. Troops must be requested, as the small contingent to assist with traffic control was requested by Muriel Bowser for the city itself.
"I was wondering what unhinged lies about the attack on the Capitol you embraced. Thanks for making that clear."
Don't believe I'm embracing any lies...unhinged or otherwise...regarding a situation about which your people refuse to be forthcoming. Questions remain unanswered from the beginning while Pelosi and her minions on the committee seek to find ways to indict someone for something rather than an honest, objective search for truth about that day.
How can you actually ask this after actually quoting me?
Because the sentence I quoted was a triple negative. I simply let two of the “nots” cancel each other out. If you meant something different, I'm happy to hear your explanation. Are your saying that you accept that it was Trump supporters who incited the attack on the Capitol?
The buck, as they say, stops with her.
You Trumpers are incredible! Do you ever take responsibility for anything? You do know that Harry Truman was the President when he said, “the buck stops here,” don't you? He wasn't the Speaker of the House. The military is under the Executive Branch, not the Legislative Branch.
By the way, when did it become 20,000 National Guard troops? I thought the original claim was that Trump had authorized 10,000 troops.
"Because the sentence I quoted was a triple negative. I simply let two of the “nots” cancel each other out. If you meant something different, I'm happy to hear your explanation."
Are you trying to be clever? Please say yes, because it's the only excuse you have for this lame angle.
"...I'm not going to pretend that it was not incited by those NOT supporting Trump."
The meaning is clear. There's been suggestions that Trump-haters were involved in inciting the people. One such person is named "Epps". He has not been proven to be a Trump supporter. I won't pretend one way or another on that until Pelosi calls him for honest questioning. Thus, with just this one dude as an example, you would pretend that ONLY Trump supporters were involved in inciting the crowd. You're not dealing with Dan here. Try a bit harder to present an actual argument.
"You Trumpers are incredible! Do you ever take responsibility for anything?"
My defense of Trump isn't the same as being a "Trumper". I have not defended every aspect of this guy's being, or even every move he made as president. So stuff that "Trumper" crap back up the orifice from which you pulled it.
In the meantime, the vast majority of that which causes suffering in this country is the result of leftist policy. When will you guys own up?
"You do know that Harry Truman was the President when he said, “the buck stops here,” don't you? He wasn't the Speaker of the House."
I'm well aware of Truman having said that. It was an expression no Dem ever puts into practice in the here and now. But his duties as president are apart from the duties of the Speaker. And in each case, each person is the last line for those duties which ARE theirs. Pelosi's involves Capitol security and safety. She dropped the ball. Clearly.
"The military is under the Executive Branch, not the Legislative Branch."
It is not within the president's authority to move troops into the Capitol compound. Troops must be requested.
"By the way, when did it become 20,000 National Guard troops? I thought the original claim was that Trump had authorized 10,000 troops."
Whatever. I guess you got me. I'll have to kill myself now. Geez. It's true. I gave you far more credit than I should have. I guess absence does indeed make the heart grow fonder.
Are you trying to be clever? Please say yes, because it's the only excuse you have for this lame angle.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Aren't you admitting that you believe that it was non-Trump supporters that incited the attack? Why does it offend you when I point out that you've admitted that? If I am wrong, please state your position in simple affirmative statements rather that convoluted triple negatives.
There's been suggestions that Trump-haters were involved in inciting the people. One such person is named "Epps". He has not been proven to be a Trump supporter. I won't pretend one way or another on that until Pelosi calls him for honest questioning. Thus, with just this one dude as an example, you would pretend that ONLY Trump supporters were involved in inciting the crowd. You're not dealing with Dan here. Try a bit harder to present an actual argument.
So there are suggestions that one guy hasn't been proved to be a Trump supporter, and you think that's the key point that the hearings should be focused on? The Epps theory has been debunked repeatedly. Just because you choose to cling to it doesn't mean that the hearings should waste any more time on it.
Of course I don't think that Trump-haters were involved in inciting the attack on the Capitol. I have several reasons for thinking this: (1) I have seen no evidence of it. Trump-haters are not invisible. If there had been Trump-haters inciting the crowd, some of their images would have been captured by cameras. (2) Trump-haters had no reason to attack the Capitol. Congress was there to certify Trump's loss in the election. That's what Trump-haters wanted. (3) It is ludicrous to suppose that Trump and the other seditionists who stirred up the mob before the attack had no idea what that mob was capable of doing—i.e., none of them anticipated anything other than a peaceful protest—but a shadowy group of BLM and Antifa provocateurs somehow knew that the Trumpers could be inspired to violently storm the Capitol.
My defense of Trump isn't the same as being a "Trumper". I have not defended every aspect of this guy's being, or even every move he made as president. So stuff that "Trumper" crap back up the orifice from which you pulled it.
You've swallowed every lie that Hannity and Tucker and the rest of Trump's Fox-sycophants have spewed out about the election and the attack on the Capitol. You haven't just drunk the Kool-Aid: you've drown yourself in it. Are you really going to feign outrage at being called a “Trumper”?
But his duties as president are apart from the duties of the Speaker. And in each case, each person is the last line for those duties which ARE theirs. Pelosi's involves Capitol security and safety. She dropped the ball. Clearly.
Once again, according to you, the organizers of the pre-attack rally planned a peaceful protest and had no reason to expect any violence. Nevertheless, like your fictional Trump-hating provocateurs who somehow managed to figure out that these peace-loving, law-abiding protesters could be incited to storm the Capitol, you think Pelosi should have been able to figure it out, too. In any case, Pelosi's duties involve Capitol security, as did McConnell's at the time. Neither of them exercised operational control.
It is not within the president's authority to move troops into the Capitol compound. Troops must be requested.
The President has the same authority over the D.C. National Guard as state governors have over theirs. Moreover, multiple requests were made for assistance during the riot as Trump was enjoying the show on his television.
"I have no idea what you are talking about here. Aren't you admitting that you believe that it was non-Trump supporters that incited the attack? Why does it offend you when I point out that you've admitted that? If I am wrong, please state your position in simple affirmative statements rather that convoluted triple negatives."
There's nothing convoluted about it, and I think you damned well know it. The number of "nots" do not relate to each other in the way you're trying to force them. At present, and largely due to self-serving decisions as to what to release to the public and what to prevent the public from seeing, we do not know how the more violent of protesters were compelled or incited to act in a violent manner. Is that clear enough for you? Are you going to contend we know all we need to know to presume to say there's no doubts? Please be so kind as to provide evidence.
So it's offensive (mildly...I'm not a "progressive" pussy) to again be told I said something I never did, while ignoring what I clearly did say...or pretending it was "convoluted".
"So there are suggestions that one guy hasn't been proved to be a Trump supporter, and you think that's the key point that the hearings should be focused on?"
No. It's merely an example of that assertion.
"The Epps theory has been debunked repeatedly."
No it hasn't, but I'm fully aware that "Nyuh uh" is sufficient for lefties to close the discussion.
I have to leave it here for now due to an appointment. I'll be back within a few hours.
Are you going to contend we know all we need to know to presume to say there's no doubts? Please be so kind as to provide evidence.
Yes. We absolutely know enough to eliminate any reasonable doubt that Trumpers and only Trumpers were responsible for the attack on the Capitol. As Trump famously said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" The evidence is overwhelming and you simply deny that it exists.
No it hasn't, but I'm fully aware that "Nyuh uh" is sufficient for lefties to close the discussion.
Epps says that he is a Trump supporter. He says that he told another Trump supporter, who did enter the Capitol, that the police were just doing their job. That Trump supporter confirms that a person he didn't know came up to him and said, “relax, the cops are doing their job.” To a rational mind, that debunks the baseless imaginings of the Trumpers.
"Of course I don't think that Trump-haters were involved in inciting the attack on the Capitol. I have several reasons for thinking this: (1) I have seen no evidence of it."
Not seeing isn't the same as having looked and not found. Try again.
"If there had been Trump-haters inciting the crowd, some of their images would have been captured by cameras."
You're in luck. But again, not having sought, one is not likely to have seen.
"(2) Trump-haters had no reason to attack the Capitol. Congress was there to certify Trump's loss in the election. That's what Trump-haters wanted."
Purposely simplistic. They didn't need to attack the Capitol themselves. It's enough to incite those with legitimate grievances. In crowds that size, it wouldn't be hard to find enough for the purpose.
"(3) It is ludicrous to suppose that Trump and the other seditionists who stirred up the mob before the attack had no idea what that mob was capable of doing"
Are you referring to former president Donald J. Trump, who recommended 10,000 troops? THAT Trump? And which "seditionist" can you cite with their actual words of incitement? (This should be amusing.)
"but a shadowy group of BLM and Antifa provocateurs somehow knew that the Trumpers could be inspired to violently storm the Capitol."
It was a gamble. After all, "Trumpers" aren't leftists with a well known history of and penchant for rioting. And it matters not who the provocateurs were mistakenly (possibly) thought to be were actually someone else.
Mobs are historically easy to rile, Vinny. There's no shortage of examples for honest people. It's simply more out of character for Trump supporters. But the crowds were indeed expected to be larger than the 400+ rallies led by Trump which had no criminal behavior of any kind. The larger the crowd, the more likely fools will be among them. Ironically, but not surprisingly, the opposite is true of lefties. The larger the lefty crowd, the more likely sensible people will be among them.
"You've swallowed every lie that Hannity and Tucker and the rest of Trump's Fox-sycophants have spewed out about the election and the attack on the Capitol."
If you don't provide a lie or two with proof it was a lie intentionally told, you'll have indicted yourself as the real liar or as one drowned in lefty KoolAid.
"Are you really going to feign outrage at being called a “Trumper”?"
No. It's not like you called me a homosexual or something. It's just not exactly the truth. Did I support him for president? The first time was a choice between two evils. I chose the clearly lesser evil. The second was a matter of preferring more of the same good things he brought the first time around, as well as knowing something akin to what your guy brought (though I did not think it could be this bad even for a moron like him....my bad). If recognizing an positively effective president makes me a "Trumper", I can live with the moniker. And it's clearly far better than being one who didn't vote for him in 2020 given how f**ked up THAT turned out for us. Indeed, it marks me as one of the bright ones. So, now that I think about it...THANKS!!! What a nice thing to say!!!
"Once again, according to you, the organizers of the pre-attack rally planned a peaceful protest and had no reason to expect any violence."
"Expect" and "plan for" are two different things. Intelligent people...like Trump...plan for the unexpected. Larger than normal crowds lead bright people to suppose there's more chance for things to go badly for any number of reasons. Morons...like those you're now defending who chose to ignore offers for troops...never think. However, it's not at all beyond reason to suppose Trump-haters would have been hoping for trouble, as they spent the entirety of Trump's first term making up crap about him to overturn his election, which is the very thing they pretend he and his supporters were doing on Jan 6.
"The President has the same authority over the D.C. National Guard as state governors have over theirs."
The mayor of DC requested what few Nat'l Guard troops were provided to assist with traffic control. They were not outfitted (denied such, actually) for dealing with riots. Nor were they imposed upon her because they must be requested. The same is true of the Capitol and Pelosi never did.
"Moreover, multiple requests were made for assistance during the riot as Trump was enjoying the show on his television."
Provide proof he was "enjoying the show on his television". Don't be a hater, Vinny. It's too Dan-like.
"Yes. We absolutely know enough to eliminate any reasonable doubt that Trumpers and only Trumpers were responsible for the attack on the Capitol."
How so?
"As Trump famously said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?""
That's pretty desperate hanging your hat on hyperbole. Good gosh! That's worse than Dan-like! That's fep-like!! Far, far worse!!!
"The evidence is overwhelming and you simply deny that it exists."
Ah! Then I can look forward to you provide some of it. I can't wait.
"Epps says that he is a Trump supporter. He says that he told another Trump supporter, who did enter the Capitol, that the police were just doing their job. That Trump supporter confirms that a person he didn't know came up to him and said, “relax, the cops are doing their job.” "
Please tell me that's not your evidence. Please, Vinny. To a rational mind, that doesn't begin to prove a damned thing. Perhaps you don't know anyone with a rational mind.
Post a Comment