it was an attack on our government and our democracy
I have said, if it was a crime the offenders should by prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Surely you understand the difference in applicable standards in defending against an attack of this nature and the due process afforded in legal proceedings.
I do. You are the one who seems to misunderstand the concept of due process. Due process requires a person charged with a crime to be tried in a courtroom. It is apparently ok with you to have the cop be judge, jury, and executioner of this unarmed woman.
Law enforcement had the right of self defense, and the obligation to defend the Capital, Senators, Representatives, and the Vice President.
I do not think that the Capital City was a risk. If you are talking about the Capitol, I'm pretty sure that deadly force is not recognized as a defense to property. As to the elected officials, they were no where near the scene of the shooting. As to the cop, it's pretty shaky for an armed cop to claim self defense against an unarmed woman. Of course, if the cop is ever tried for this killing he/she would be entitled to raise that as a defense.
Don’t storm the seat of our federal government intent on insurrection and you won’t risk getting shot.
Novel concept - if you don't commit a crime you won't get shot. I wonder how that concept would play out.
The only unknown is why the defenders of the Capital did not shoot more of the insurrectionists. It would certainly have been justified, legally and morally.
I suppose you would have been alright with machine gunning them all - even though the vast majority left the Capitol and the Capitol grounds after being told to leave.
I only hope that Trump and the rest of the traitors who instigated this attack on our democracy are brought to justice, convicted, and incarcerated.
There is a process for this. We will see if prosecutors believe they have the evidence to charge this crime.
I'm going to the office. Have a great day.
The most ludicrous statement you make above, and there are many, is that the defenders of the Capital were defending “property”. They were first defending democracy, and next protecting the lives of the representatives and the Vice President. You have clearly bought into the lies and excuse making of the Trump crowd. I hope you recover.
Unfortunately, the answer is yes when she (along with her companions) has trespassed through several layers of US security despite multiple warnings. She was not a lone interloper. "There was more than one officer in the room", and there was a hell of a lot more than a lone misguided trespasser - many of companions armed. C'mon Counselor, you can do better than offer the above lonely misguided trespasser.
AS for Trump being treated unfairly, Greg has presented a series of Facts - all of them preceding his inauguration. Greg did not touch his personal history prior to the inauguration. This character is President of U.S.! His character is well established prior to his inauguration. One illustration of that character goes all the way back to the 70's and the development of Grand Hyatt on 42nd St.
. . . But early on, the city suspected something was amiss with the rent payments, when the total dropped in 1986, despite rising profits. A 1989 review by Karen Burstein, the city’s auditor general at the time, found that "Mr. Trump and Hyatt owed the city $2.9 million for 1986, having used “aberrant and distortive” accounting methods to reduce their obligation.
“This was subsidized by city residents,” Ms. Burstein said recently of the tax break. “The last thing you do is cheat the very people who are your partners.” NY Times September 17, 2016
In my opinion and it is an opinion, The Press (including The New York Times) was not nearly as diligent and forceful in vetting Trump in 2016 as it was in vetting Biden (as an example) in 2020.
Trump has spent a lifetime in abusing the "benefit of the doubt" where in fact there is no doubt. To his credit, he is brilliant at taking advantage of those who don't want to believe and those who simply refuse to believe. Counselor, you have chosen to suspend your excellent critical thinking skills developed at Iona when it comes to Trump, Babbitt and their ilk.
"When I hear someone, like Schiff, say he has evidence that DJT colluded with the Russians,I expect to see that evidence. I still have not seen it." You have seen it!
"Just like when I hear DJT saying he has evidence that could change the election, I expect to see it. I have not seen that evidence, either." You have not seen it!
Chels, I am sorry that I missed your post, I did not mean to ignore it.
I find it convenient though that you change the argument to the George Floyd riots rather than addressing the break-in to our Capitol.
I believe that I said that anyone who wrongfully entered the Capitol should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and to the extent that they are found guilty of an attempted coup they are guilty of treason which is punishable by death.
This thread has become quite uncomfortable for me - not because I do not believe my point to be proper, but because I am arguing with people I consider my brother Gael fans. Isn't that exactly what the Civil War was about - brother fighting brother? It's what I mentioned in my first post in this thread, it is time for moderates to get things in order. This thread is a microcosm of the divisiveness in our country right now. I hope something can be done before it's too late.
Who's fighting? Expressing differences of opinion is "fighting?" Wow--"time for moderates to get things in order."
"We will see what the committee the House finds. I am not confident that it will give a fair and impartial review (most of the committee were the leaders of the failed impeachments of DJT so I question their impartiality)"
Opportunity for an impartial committee was turned down by the Senate led by...
SLG, I never said that Babbitt was a lone trespasser. I am aware that there were other people in the room that she was leaving through the window when she was shot and killed. But I still maintain that the officers in the room she was trying to enter could have placed her under arrest. I am of the opinion that lethal force need not have been used on her. Is this something that can be argued? Certainly.
As for greg's facts, I believe that they allegations rather than facts. The Mueller committee certainly had all of these allegations. They were clearly not fans of Donald Trump. Nevertheless, they were unable to conclude that there was collusion between the Russians and DJT. These facts/allegations could have been the basis for articles of impeachment, but never were. Why? How many bites at the apple do they want? So, I disagree that I have seen the facts about the collusion. I do still agree that I have not seen facts about evidence that could have changed the results of the 2020 election.
As to Trump's real estate dealings in the past and his character, I am not aware of the NY Times story, but as I said in another post, I rarely believe them. They may or may not be true, but that does not enter into my decision to vote for someone. Even if I assume for the purpose of this post that Trump is the biggest prick in the world, I think he did a good job as President. And that's my primary concern - the job he does while in office. I am of the opinion that Jimmy Carter is probably the most likeable and the most decent human being of all our Presidents. But as likeable as he may be, I thought he did a horrible job as President.
As to Biden's vetting, I respectfully disagree. Social media shut down all stories of his son's computer and possible "pay to play" schemes dealing with Ukraine and China (when Hunter, Kerry's step son, and Whitey Bulger's son flew on AF 2 with Biden and left with a very lucrative deal). The media also ignored the person (who's name escapes me now) who discussed his meeting with Biden, his son, and Biden's brother about a deal that Hunter Biden was planning in which "the big guy" was to get his cut. You're an honest guy, SLG, if there were stories such as those about one of Trump's sons or siblings, do you think that the media would have reported or quashed those stories?
Super, I equate "divisiveness" with a disagreement. I think it is pretty clear that there is disagreement in this thread and think that there is legitimate disagreement. As to whether any person in this thread was fighting, I will let the readers decide that for themselves. It is often difficult to discern legitimate argument from fighting and/or sarcasm when reading the written word. There is no opportunity to hear tone or see body language. So, let me make this clear, I can see and respect your position - I simply do not agree with you as you do not agree with me.
I would have liked to have seen a committee on January 6. As much as I believe that Schiff would have used the same strong arm tactics about witnesses and subpoenas as he did in the impeachment hearings (he's in the majority and so he can do that - that's politics, it is partisan), I would have liked to have seen an inquiry into the events leading up to January 6 including what the FBI and intelligence folks knew pre-January 6; what the Capitol Police and the leaders of congress knew; and why offers of National Guard support before January 6 to DC's mayor and the Capitol Police by the defense department were turned down. Regardless of whether there may be a committee or not sometime in the future, clearly able and competent prosecutors can bring charges against DJT or anyone else for inciting an insurrection if they think they have the necessary evidence to prove the claim. While I have never practiced criminal law, I did look up the elements of the crime of inciting - it's pretty simple and clear. Either the DOJ/DC US Attorney's office has the evidence to prove such claim or does not. They do not need a congressional committee to bring charges. We will see if it happens.
I gave myself last weekend off and that was the reason I was able to take the time to write most of my replies in this thread. I just got home a little while ago and have taken the last half hour or so to respond to the posts above.
I want to advise that I will be out of pocket for a while to undergo a number of medical procedures I am having between this week and a surgery on July 28. I am only 69, but I am realizing that getting old is not for the faint of heart. On top of that I have a number of matters in the circuit courts of Virginia and Maryland that I need to write pleadings on and argue during this time. So, if I do not respond to posts promptly it is not because I threw in the towel, it's just that I need to deal with real life matters rather than pursue this folly which will change no minds.
Every day I hear music; movie lines; play lines, etc go through my brain without conjuring them up. I do not know why, but for some reason one of my English professors, Dr. Brophy (who I haven't thought about in years), and this Shakespeare quote just popped into my mind so I will share it for your enjoyment and a diversion from politics:
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
This is what happens when I let all you old guys run free.
The inmates are running the asylum!
Off to eat some dinner and do some work. Be well, all.
(For those interested in History) Was the start of the Battle of Gettysburg, which lasted for three days, and was the bloodiest battle of the Civil War. And probably its turning point. Just watched a story (PBS) about it, and recommend it to all.
Check out Battlefield Trust's short interactive map of the battle. Superb. Buford's cavalry on Day I. Nutty Dan Scickles out of formation for the Union on Day II, almost costing the Union the victory. Defense of little round top by the 20th Maine under Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain on the Union extreme left flank. Pickett's absurd charge over the open field 1.25 miles, up hill at the Union position on Day III (Longstreet couldn't even voice the command to attack - just waived his hand).
Z as an attorney I'm sure you read the Mueller Report - he did not find the necessary element of intent to commit conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws (there is no crime called "collusion," so Mueller couldn't bring a "collusion" indictment recommendation if he wanted to). In fact due to the DOJ rules against indicting a sitting president, as someone who worked for the DOJ, Mueller couldn't indict trump on anything. What Mueller did do is say there is substantial evidence of obstruction of Justice on the part of trump and since he couldn't indict, he'd leave it up to Congress to impeach. Most of the country didn't hear that because of the effective job by Bill Barr to whitewash the whole thing. Democrats knowing they would get zero republicans to stand up and knowing how complex an issue this is to explain let it go. I think it was a mistake personally. Trump lied about having personal business connections with Russia during the campaign, a lie that was repeated by his personal attorney Michael Cohen under oath to Congress, which is one of the reasons Cohen went to prison. Other than that, the Russia connection to his campaign went through Manafort, who shared campaign information with an agent of the Russian government, which was targeting Americans with a disinformation campaign all through the election. Manafort, seriously in debt to Russian oligarchs, was as dirty as they come. My guess is that trump probably didn't know about or understand what was wrong with this.
Won't even comment on the disgraceful events of January 6th other than to say it was one of the darkest moments for this country this Century and in a long time.
Last Edit: Jul 8, 2021 9:57:26 GMT -5 by hawaii bill
? or legitimate disagreement?
