What is so successful about being charged? And if you don't rob a bank, why should you be charged? Sounds like a scam.

Classic Detbuch. Page after pages of how he loves the constitution :deadhorse:

But suggest Trump and his supporters never tried to overturn the election .. :faga:

I’ll bet someone was disappointed when it failed :bsod:

Well, not disappointed, never really thought it would work (for various other reasons than legality).

So what was wrong with the video I posted to start the thread . . .? On the other hand, forget about it or you'll just beat your own dead horse.

I never said they never tried. I have said, specifically, that they tried a legal process.

Spoken like a True cult member.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If having an opinion makes someone a cult member, then everyone on this forum is a cult member. And yet again, you go off on your idiotic tangent of swerving away from the subject of the thread--your repetitive beating of the dead horse of inability to rise beyond the narrow tunnel vision that blinds you from seeing the "big picture" you so often claim that others can't see.

Is it really your opinion that Trump and his inner circle only tried a legal process, even in light of all the testimony and written texts and emails?

I was replying to Wayne's charge that I "suggest Trump and his supporters never tried to overturn the election." I may have objected to the use of that loaded phrase, but I never said "never." As usual, he went to his old trick of responding to something I didn't say--the putting words in my mouth ploy. I allowed as I did once say (don't remember what I was responding to then) that they tried what they outlined as a legal procedure.

As for your question, I didn't say they ONLY tried a legal process. I don't know if "Trump and his inner circle" tried anything illegal," that would require some sort of trial. After seeing what was done to Trump while he was in office, I have absolutely no faith in the veracity nor the spin put on "testimony" and "written texts and emails." I wouldn't doubt if he or they did some shady things. If so, and the evidence is real, not just circumstantial or possibilities, conjecture, etc. . . . then just punishment is fine with me.

I have, to a great degree, moved on from that and am far more concerned about the destruction of our constitutional system. But I do get annoyed at Wayne's tactics. And if it is so dificult for him to stay on topic and incessantly wander off into whatever itches his fancy, put words in my mouth, respond to things I never said, why doesn't he just start another thread that deals with his personal peaves.

Yup proven cult member, even evidence won’t change your mind, it’s the MAGA way. I suspect even if he is charged and found guilty, will will think it was all political and the irony is they tried to erase the votes of countless Americans…….so constitutional right.

Actually, you sound like a cult member. You're for conviction before a trial.

If that’s the definition of cult members, I haven’t heard rallies led by Democrats chanting “lock him up” , “hang Mike Pence” or Democrats leading those or similar chants.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's not a definition. And there's a whole lot of things you haven't heard, and that you refuse to hear when they stare you in the face--which fits in very well with your perverted notion that speech should be censured if it frightens or threatens what you prefer to believe. It's your three monkey way of creating the brave new world that conforms to your closed-minded world of supposedly benevolent chaos.

I actually think the Jan 6th committee pulled so much evidence in interviews, emails, texts and video evidence, it was in my opinion (which by the way I asked you for before you dodged), was the essence of a trial. The only things missing was a judge and defense attorney and as a member of this jury, I vote guilty on multiple counts for Trump against the will of the people and his inner circle of nuts thinking they could keep Trump in power. You feel free to play the part of the defense team and show us evidence proving otherwise, good luck.

Ahh Saul, I see how you play it….
Goebbels would be proud
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahh, blah-blah-blah

"The only things missing was a judge and defense attorney" and an actual sworn in and vetted jury. Like a Kangaroo Court.

Deflection and a non answer, we are all waiting for your defense, I guess all the testimony was coerced, all the texts and emails fabricated and the videos photo shopped. I know there was no insurrection, those were peaceful protesters and Trump and his expert legal crew were only attempting strictly legal avenues to change the results and I know it was all constitutional.

I answered using your own words. There was no actual trial with defense attorneys to question, cross examine, and rebut. When and if that happens, depending on the jurisdiction, etc., we can have at least somewhat of a clearer and fairer understanding of what happened.

An "investigation" by Congress can be more politically oriented by a controlling party which selects who and what is said and what is allowed. The hyper political atmosphere that Jan6 created, and the one-sided representation of the committee running the investigation, does not instill in me any confidence in the process and outcome.

“Depending on the jurisdiction, etc.”

Hopefully it’s coming, but you’ll still spin it…..because truth isn’t truth and there’s alternative facts.

And by the way from the WaPo
“Congressional investigators found evidence that tech platforms — especially Twitter — failed to heed their own employees’ warnings about violent rhetoric on their platforms and bent their rules to avoid penalizing conservatives,” particularly Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another deflection, are you not able to voice your opinion of whether Trump and his inner circle committed crimes? You have voiced your opinion on almost everything else, we have all enjoyed or been forced to endure your sesquipedalian speeches on a multitude of topics.

Oh, I am very well able to voice my opinion on that. But I think that would be neither proper nor prudent. As in the Mueller Russia Gate investigation, I commented on various accusations and pointed out they were speculative more than probative as actual criminal acts. I waited for the special counsel to present probative evidence, which, as he admitted, he could not. Those on the left jumped on the bandwagon of "guilty" before the investigation was over, and they got the proverbial mud on their face when it was. And even that investigation did not afford Trump a means of defense--impeachment might have, but given the lack of proof provided by the investigation it probably would have been more politically driven and motivated than an actual "fair" trial.

But on whether Trump and his inner circle committed crimes re Jan6, I don't know if they did when they did not have their day in court where their lawyers were allowed to present all of their evidence and were allowed to get testimony from their own witnesses and allowed to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. Speculating on whether they committed crimes (on the basis of a highly politicized investigation run entirely by rabid anti-Trumpers) when they could not mount the kind of defense afforded in a real, legal trial, is foolish.

BTW, You actually supported my opinion on trusting or relying on a congressional criminal investigation. In another thread a professional environmentalists take on Hunter Biden laptop your post #4 you said "the crazy train leaders comprise the house oversight committee, think about that for a minute. Some of the key people outside of Trumps inner legal team supporting the attempt to illegally reverse the will of the people are now driving the train."

You cast doubt on a congressional investigation because of what you consider its political "train." That very much is the kind of train that drove the congressional Jan6 investigation. But from the opposing side--a "crazy train" of anti-Trumpers.

Tell me you never read the Mueller Report without telling me you never read the Mueller Report.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tell me that you know more about the Mueller Report than Mueller. Tell me he was mistaken when he concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convict Trump for conspiracy with Russia to influence the election.

Geez . . . do we have to keep going over this over and over and over . . .

Easy answer one investigation sought the truth and I’m pretty sure in legal circles and in the court of public appeal, they did an outstanding job. This Hunter investigation will be headed up with liars, election deniers and will run it based on one premise; we must at all cost hurt the democrats this is our time for revenge.

You can’t even answer a simple question on whether you feel Trump and his inner circle committed crimes, so we already know which investigation you are routing for. Love your non answer, it would be inappropriate and speculative to answer, what a lame position. Like posting your opinion on a board with a handful of guys is somehow wrong, you are on the crazy train.

Why do you care what a crappie fisherman "feels"? You seem to have contempt for crappie fisherman. But, since you really want to know what I feel about Jan6, the whole thing disgusts me, from the riots to the investigation. I would think that you would know that from what I have said about it in several other posts.

And being fussy about the honest and accurate use of language, I hate all the labels thrown at it. I hate propagandistic language, especially when it blankets a whole group of people who have different views and motives.

But mostly, "feelings" are more heartfelt when they are about small groups or single people. There are many individual people who have been swept up, mercilessly, persecuted, killed, made to look like traitors and scoundrels, had livelihoods and reputations destroyed, by something that seems to be more than merely seeking justice for actual crimes.

If that's too vague for you, well, that's what you get when you wallow in the muddy water of "feelings."

I don't, if I can help it, discuss "feelings" if I'm engaged in serious discussion. I'll stick with as much facts as possible. And hold judgment till all the facts are in.

Not really just another dodge, here let’s make the question very simple, since apparently your having comprehension issues. Did Trump and his inner circle commit crimes.

Have they been convicted of crimes?

For a guy who said “Oh, I am very well able to voice my opinion” you just aren’t for some reason willing to offer your opinion on that specific question. Seems to me it’s an easy yes I believe crimes were likely committed or no I don’t see any evidence crimes were committed. Are you afraid the other lurking trolls of your ilk might see your opinion.

I said I was able . . . but a serious discussion about whether or not someone committed a crime should not be based on feelings. If you're asking me, simply as chit-chat if I think, or feel, or believe, that Trump and his inner circle committed a crime re Jan6, the simple answer is I DON'T KNOW. I SINCERELY, WITHOUT A DOUBT, DON'T KNOW. I SO MUCH DON'T KNOW THAT I DON'T EVEN HAVE A FEELING, OR BELIEF THAT THEY DID OR DIDN'T COMMIT A CRIME. (I have even said in this thread that I wouldn't be surprised if they did something shady.)

Nor do I come on the forum to chit-chat. You can opine, and believe, and think, and feel, and be "pretty sure" to your hearts content. Maybe it relieves some pressures or pestering doubt in your soul to gossip about your feelings, but that's really of no interest to me. That's not a criticism. Maybe, as a simple crappie fisherman, my mind is not expansive enough to dwell on all the ifs dancing on the head of a pin. At least not on a political forum. I don't come on the forum to discuss my feelings. I can do that at home and with personal friends having a good time. And even in those situations I can sometimes be contrarian when someone is so cocksure about something that has nuances--just to test their blind certainty.

But, in this case, however shocking or disconcerting it may be to you, I honestly don't have what would have to be a biased opinion (since I really don't know) on your question.

Also, be careful about referring to someone else on the forum as a troll. You have said several times that you just come on here to get a rile out of some people. That's what trolls do.