Benjamin Cole Posted December 23, 2021 Share Posted December 23, 2021 10 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: I'm a Buff, too, but our local college football team has been so mediocre in recent years that I've been losing interest in watching their games. Our Buffaloes seem to be an endangered species... 🤥 Go Buffs, in the JFKA community and on the plains of Colorado! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted December 23, 2021 Share Posted December 23, 2021 51 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: Serious question for the forum. Is Donald Trump also looking at 20 years for conspiring to obstruct an official Congressional proceeding on January 6th? Proud Boys member pleads guilty to conspiring to obstruct Congress on January 6th www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/proud-boys-member-pleads-guilty-to-conspiring-to-obstruct-congress-on-jan-6/ar-AAS48VE?ocid=msedgntp December 22, 2021 W.--For reasons good and bad, hard to say. Nixon never did a day. Bush jr. never did a day for serious civil and war crimes, and is now lionized in the M$M. There is a reluctance is seriously prosecute a President, something about the gravity of office and he "need to move on." To put a president behind bars is to admit the top authority figure in the US can be a criminal, and that may increase disrespect for authority in general---not a desired result. On the other hand (and here we may disagree), there are elements within the national security state who deeply opposed Trump, as did (and does) the major rival political party. They seek to destroy Trump and the associated populist anti-globalist movement. I still sense the Donk-national security state alliance would be satisfied if Trump is just humiliated, found guilty in a court of law, and banned from public office. As for the Proud Boys, they are led by the Afro-Cubano Enrique Tarrio...an erstwhile federal plant and informant. Who was let out of jail on Jan. 5. Does that jail-release date seem odd to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted December 23, 2021 Share Posted December 23, 2021 From WHO? Not me! https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/22/who-says-covid-vaccine-booster-programs-will-prolong-pandemic.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted December 23, 2021 Share Posted December 23, 2021 4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Serious question for the forum. Is Donald Trump also looking at 20 years for conspiring to obstruct an official Congressional proceeding on January 6th? Proud Boys member pleads guilty to conspiring to obstruct Congress on January 6th www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/proud-boys-member-pleads-guilty-to-conspiring-to-obstruct-congress-on-jan-6/ar-AAS48VE?ocid=msedgntp December 22, 2021 Well, it was Treason. A hangable offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted December 23, 2021 Share Posted December 23, 2021 34 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said: Well, it was Treason. A hangable offense. Ron B- Hopefully before The Ox-Bow Incident, you will at least look at this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted December 23, 2021 Share Posted December 23, 2021 Donald Trump's Petition to the Supreme Court to block release of his Presidential Records filed 12/23/21 https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-932/206268/20211223101028235_21- Petition.pdf Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted December 23, 2021 Share Posted December 23, 2021 In today's NYT, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe is telling his former pupil, AG Merrick Garland, that Trump must be prosecuted for inciting the January 6th attack on Congress. Seems like a no brainer. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/opinion/trump-capitol-riot-january-6th.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted December 23, 2021 Share Posted December 23, 2021 (edited) 16 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Serious question for the forum. Is Donald Trump also looking at 20 years for conspiring to obstruct an official Congressional proceeding on January 6th? Proud Boys member pleads guilty to conspiring to obstruct Congress on January 6th www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/proud-boys-member-pleads-guilty-to-conspiring-to-obstruct-congress-on-jan-6/ar-AAS48VE?ocid=msedgntp December 22, 2021 Seems like the Proud Boys Judge Amit Mehta may be leaving that door ajar at least on the cases he's seeing. It's within anyone's right to protest an official gathering for a variety of reasons but the line gets crossed when the protest becomes the forceable hindering of an official proceeding. Counting electoral votes is not a congressional picnic or a political speech where they showed up and invoked their first amendment privilege. It's a recognized duty of government to administer that proceeding and they did stop it using forceable means. Potential problems exist where the government can claim almost any behavior by a public official is an "official act" but 1/6 clearly goes beyond that and the prosecution can't be accused (they'll try) of prosecuting free speech. There are different sentences handed down depending on whether they are convicted of harassment or obstruction. I believe the harassment carries a 3 year max and obstruction a 20 year. The question, I believe, becomes did Trump et al conspire in the obstruction? I'm pretty sure that's what all the fuss is about regarding witnesses refusing to testify to the House Committee. The links to Trump's potential involvement (and Meadows, Jordan etc) resides in the evidence the committee can gather and turn over to DoJ or the FBI can come up with themselves. If so, then maybe he runs his campaign from Rikers. TL;DR Depends. Hahaha Edited December 23, 2021 by Bob Ness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted December 24, 2021 Share Posted December 24, 2021 7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: In today's NYT, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe is telling his former pupil, AG Merrick Garland, that Trump must be prosecuted for inciting the January 6th attack on Congress. Seems like a no brainer. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/opinion/trump-capitol-riot-january-6th.html W., is there a way to see this without creating an account for limited free articles or subscribing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted December 24, 2021 Share Posted December 24, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: In today's NYT, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe is telling his former pupil, AG Merrick Garland, that Trump must be prosecuted for inciting the January 6th attack on Congress. Seems like a no brainer. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/opinion/trump-capitol-riot-january-6th.html Prosecuted, possibly, perhaps a bit of a fishing expedition. But convicted? Wouldn't you like some evidence the 600-700 odd people arrested on Jan. 6 had some connections to Trump Administration people? Cell-phone calls, texts, e-mails, hand-written letters delivered by courier, anything? So far, not a single shred of evidence has emerged. Evidently, the federal government has been able to open even encrypted texts. Should there also be a fair and determined investigation to find out if federal assets instigated the scrum at the Capitol? The use of federal provocateurs and agitators is not unknown. And I still would like to know where were the 3,500 officers of the Capitol Police Department. The Capitol officer in charge of civil disturbances response was home making meat loaf when troubles broke out (WaPo), on the afternoon of Jan. 6. How is that possible? This sure looks like a manufactured event. The scrum participants as useful idiots? Edited December 24, 2021 by Benjamin Cole typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted December 24, 2021 Share Posted December 24, 2021 5 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: Prosecuted, possibly, perhaps a bit of a fishing expedition. But convicted? Wouldn't you like some evidence the 600-700 odd people arrested on Jan. 6 had some connections to Trump Administration people? Cell-phone calls, texts, e-mails, hand-written letters delivered by courier, anything? So far, not a single shred of evidence has emerged. Evidently, the federal government has been able to open even encrypted texts. Should there also be a fair and determined investigation to find out of federal assets instigated the scrum at the Capitol? The use of federal provocateurs and agitators is not unknown. And I still would like to know where were the 3,500 officers of the Capitol Police Department. The Capitol officer in charge of civil disturbances response was home making meat loaf when troubles broke out (WaPo), on the afternoon of Jan. 6. How is that possible? This sure looks like a manufactured event. The scrum participants as useful idiots? Scrum dumb. Tell me who called Lee Harvey Oswald a Useful Idiot. Meatloaf? Don't let your . . . meatloaf indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted December 24, 2021 Share Posted December 24, 2021 19 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said: Scrum dumb. Tell me who called Lee Harvey Oswald a Useful Idiot. Meatloaf? Don't let your . . . meatloaf indeed. Ron B.- Touche! We may disagree on some perceptions, but your sense of humor tops mine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted December 24, 2021 Share Posted December 24, 2021 1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said: W., is there a way to see this without creating an account for limited free articles or subscribing? Here's today's NYT letter, Ron. Will Donald Trump Get Away With Inciting an Insurrection?www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/opinion/trump-capitol-riot-january-6th.html by Laurence Tribe, Donald Ayer, and Dennis Aftergut December 23, 2021 In his nine months in office, Attorney General Merrick Garland has done a great deal to restore integrity and evenhanded enforcement of the law to an agency that was badly misused for political reasons under his predecessor. But his place in history will be assessed against the challenges that confronted him. And the overriding test that he and the rest of the government face is the threat to our democracy from people bent on destroying it. Mr. Garland’s success depends on ensuring that the rule of law endures. That means dissuading future coup plotters by holding the leaders of the insurrection fully accountable for their attempt to overthrow the government. But he cannot do so without a robust criminal investigation of those at the top, from the people who planned, assisted or funded the attempt to overturn the Electoral College vote to those who organized or encouraged the mob attack on the Capitol. To begin with, he might focus on Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and even Donald Trump — all of whom were involved, in one way or another, in the events leading up to the attack. Almost a year after the insurrection, we have yet to see any clear indicators that such an investigation is underway, raising the alarming possibility that this administration may never bring charges against those ultimately responsible for the attack. While the Justice Department has filed charges against more than 700 people who participated in the violence, limiting the investigation to these foot soldiers would be a grave mistake: As Joanne Freeman, a Yale historian, wrote this month about the insurrection, “Accountability — the belief that political power holders are responsible for their actions and that blatant violations will be addressed — is the lifeblood of democracy. Without it, there can be no trust in government, and without trust, democratic governments have little power.” The legal path to investigate the leaders of the coup attempt is clear. The criminal code prohibits inciting an insurrection or “giving aid or comfort” to those who do, as well as conspiracy to forcibly “prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” The code also makes it a crime to corruptly impede any official proceeding or deprive citizens of their constitutional right to vote. Based purely on what we know today from news reports and the steady stream of revelations coming from the House select committee investigating the attack, the attorney general has a powerful justification for a robust and forceful investigation into the former president and his inner circle. As White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows was intimately involved in the effort to overturn the election. He traveled to Georgia last December, where he apparently laid the groundwork for the phone call in which the president pressured Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find 11,780 votes.” Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio reportedly promoted a scheme to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject duly certified Joe Biden electors. And from their war room at the Willard Hotel, several members of the president’s inner circle hatched the legal strategy to overturn the results of the election. The president himself sat back for three hours while his chief of staff was barraged with messages from members of Congress and Fox News hosts pleading with him to have Mr. Trump call off the armed mob whose violent passion he had inflamed. That evidence, on its own, may not be enough to convict the former president, but it is certainly enough to require a criminal investigation. And yet there are no signs, at least in media reports, that the attorney general is building a case against these individuals — no interviews with top administration officials, no reports of attempts to persuade the foot soldiers to turn on the people who incited them to violence. By this point in the Russia investigation, the special counsel Robert Mueller had indicted Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and secured the cooperation of George Papadopoulos after charging him with lying to the F.B.I. The media was reporting that the special counsel’s team had conducted or scheduled interviews with Mr. Trump’s aides Stephen Miller and Mr. Bannon, as well as Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Of course, there is no way to know for sure whether Mr. Garland’s Department of Justice is investigating the leaders of the attack behind closed doors. Justice Department policy does not permit announcing investigations, absent exceptional circumstances. Mr. Garland, unlike his predecessor, plays by the book, keeping quiet about investigations until charges are filed. But the first of the rioters to plead guilty began cooperating with the Justice Department back in April. If prosecutors have been using their cooperation to investigate the top officials and operatives responsible for the siege of the Capitol and our democracy, there would likely be significant confirmation in the media by now. It is possible that the department is deferring the decision about starting a full-blown investigative effort pending further work by the House select committee. It is even conceivable that the department is waiting for the committee’s final report so that federal prosecutors can review the documents, interviews and recommendations amassed by House investigators and can consider any potential referrals for criminal prosecution. But such an approach would come at a very high cost. In the prosecution business, interviews need to happen as soon as possible after the events in question, to prevent both forgetfulness and witness coordination to conceal the truth. A comprehensive Department of Justice probe of the leadership is now more urgently needed than ever. It is also imperative that Mr. Trump be included on the list of those being investigated. The media has widely reported his role in many of the relevant events, and there is no persuasive reason to exclude him. First, he has no claim to constitutional immunity from prosecution. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has recognized such immunity only for sitting presidents because a criminal trial would prevent them from discharging the duties of their office. Mr. Trump no longer has those duties to discharge. Nor is exclusion of the former president remotely justified by the precedent President Gerald Ford set in pardoning Richard Nixon to help the country “heal” from Watergate. Even our proud tradition of not mimicking banana republics by allowing political winners to retaliate against losers must give way in the wake of violence perpetrated to thwart the peaceful transition of power. Refusing to at least investigate those who plot to end democracy — and who would remain engaged in efforts to do so — would be beyond foolhardy. Furthermore, the pending state and local investigations in New York and Atlanta will never be able to provide the kind of accountability the nation clearly needs. The New York case, which revolves around tax fraud, has nothing to do with the attack on our government. The Atlanta district attorney appears to be probing Mr. Trump’s now infamous call to Mr. Raffensperger. But that is just one chapter of the wrongdoing that led up to the attack on the Capitol. Significantly, even if the Atlanta district attorney is able to convict Mr. Meadows and Mr. Trump for interfering in Georgia’s election, they could still run for office again. Only convicting them for participating in an insurrection would permanently disqualify them from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Some have expressed pessimism that the Department of Justice would be able to convict Mr. Trump. His guilt would ultimately be for a jury to decide, and some jurors might believe he deluded himself into believing his own big lie and thus genuinely thought he was saving, rather than sabotaging, the election. But concerns about a conviction are no reason to refrain from an investigation. If anything, a federal criminal investigation could unearth even more evidence and provide a firmer basis for deciding whether to indict. To decline from the outset to investigate would be appeasement, pure and simple, and appeasing bullies and wrongdoers only encourages more of the same. Without forceful action to hold the wrongdoers to account, we will likely not resist what some retired generals see as a march to another insurrection in 2024 if Mr. Trump or another demagogue loses. Throughout his public life, Mr. Garland has been a highly principled public servant focused on doing the right thing. But only by holding the leaders of the Jan. 6 insurrection — all of them — to account can he secure the future and teach the next generation that no one is above the law. If he has not done so already, we implore the attorney general to step up to that task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted December 24, 2021 Share Posted December 24, 2021 (edited) "More than 75 journalists in the (Washington) Post newsroom contributed to The Attack (the three-part series on the Capitol scrum), including more than 25 reporters. The findings are based on interviews with more than 230 people and thousands of pages of court documents and internal law enforcement reports, along with hundreds of videos, photographs and audio recordings."-WaPo. I do not know what the difference is between a "journalist" and a "reporter," but let that go. I guess the WaPo had two editors and opinion-writers involved for every reporter. So the WaPo devoted a small army of investigators to the The Attack. I think it is fair to say the WaPo loathes, detests and reviles Don Trump, and that is their right. As a print publication, they are under no obligation to be fair, balanced, or even to tell the truth, as long as they do not libel anyone. In this large amount of investigation, did the WaPo unearth any communications between Trump Administration officials and the rioters at the Capitol on 1/6? Any directives from Trumpers to enter the Capitol? The federal government, which has subpoena powers, and the ability to read all texts, emails and to replay and listen to all cellphones calls, has produced no evidence. The record is this: As of now, there is no evidence the Trump Administration officials played a role in the Jan. 6 scrum. Some are conflating harebrained plans presented to the Trump Administration to have VP Pence somehow stall the vote, but using powers granted to him under the Constitution, with the 1/6 scrum. Evidently, Pence either ignored or was never showed such plans. Edited December 24, 2021 by Benjamin Cole typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted December 24, 2021 Share Posted December 24, 2021 8 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: Here's today's NYT letter, Ron. Will Donald Trump Get Away With Inciting an Insurrection?www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/opinion/trump-capitol-riot-january-6th.html by Laurence Tribe, Donald Ayer, and Dennis Aftergut December 23, 2021 In his nine months in office, Attorney General Merrick Garland has done a great deal to restore integrity and evenhanded enforcement of the law to an agency that was badly misused for political reasons under his predecessor. But his place in history will be assessed against the challenges that confronted him. And the overriding test that he and the rest of the government face is the threat to our democracy from people bent on destroying it. Mr. Garland’s success depends on ensuring that the rule of law endures. That means dissuading future coup plotters by holding the leaders of the insurrection fully accountable for their attempt to overthrow the government. But he cannot do so without a robust criminal investigation of those at the top, from the people who planned, assisted or funded the attempt to overturn the Electoral College vote to those who organized or encouraged the mob attack on the Capitol. To begin with, he might focus on Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and even Donald Trump — all of whom were involved, in one way or another, in the events leading up to the attack. Almost a year after the insurrection, we have yet to see any clear indicators that such an investigation is underway, raising the alarming possibility that this administration may never bring charges against those ultimately responsible for the attack. While the Justice Department has filed charges against more than 700 people who participated in the violence, limiting the investigation to these foot soldiers would be a grave mistake: As Joanne Freeman, a Yale historian, wrote this month about the insurrection, “Accountability — the belief that political power holders are responsible for their actions and that blatant violations will be addressed — is the lifeblood of democracy. Without it, there can be no trust in government, and without trust, democratic governments have little power.” The legal path to investigate the leaders of the coup attempt is clear. The criminal code prohibits inciting an insurrection or “giving aid or comfort” to those who do, as well as conspiracy to forcibly “prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” The code also makes it a crime to corruptly impede any official proceeding or deprive citizens of their constitutional right to vote. Based purely on what we know today from news reports and the steady stream of revelations coming from the House select committee investigating the attack, the attorney general has a powerful justification for a robust and forceful investigation into the former president and his inner circle. As White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows was intimately involved in the effort to overturn the election. He traveled to Georgia last December, where he apparently laid the groundwork for the phone call in which the president pressured Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find 11,780 votes.” Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio reportedly promoted a scheme to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject duly certified Joe Biden electors. And from their war room at the Willard Hotel, several members of the president’s inner circle hatched the legal strategy to overturn the results of the election. The president himself sat back for three hours while his chief of staff was barraged with messages from members of Congress and Fox News hosts pleading with him to have Mr. Trump call off the armed mob whose violent passion he had inflamed. That evidence, on its own, may not be enough to convict the former president, but it is certainly enough to require a criminal investigation. And yet there are no signs, at least in media reports, that the attorney general is building a case against these individuals — no interviews with top administration officials, no reports of attempts to persuade the foot soldiers to turn on the people who incited them to violence. By this point in the Russia investigation, the special counsel Robert Mueller had indicted Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and secured the cooperation of George Papadopoulos after charging him with lying to the F.B.I. The media was reporting that the special counsel’s team had conducted or scheduled interviews with Mr. Trump’s aides Stephen Miller and Mr. Bannon, as well as Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Of course, there is no way to know for sure whether Mr. Garland’s Department of Justice is investigating the leaders of the attack behind closed doors. Justice Department policy does not permit announcing investigations, absent exceptional circumstances. Mr. Garland, unlike his predecessor, plays by the book, keeping quiet about investigations until charges are filed. But the first of the rioters to plead guilty began cooperating with the Justice Department back in April. If prosecutors have been using their cooperation to investigate the top officials and operatives responsible for the siege of the Capitol and our democracy, there would likely be significant confirmation in the media by now. It is possible that the department is deferring the decision about starting a full-blown investigative effort pending further work by the House select committee. It is even conceivable that the department is waiting for the committee’s final report so that federal prosecutors can review the documents, interviews and recommendations amassed by House investigators and can consider any potential referrals for criminal prosecution. But such an approach would come at a very high cost. In the prosecution business, interviews need to happen as soon as possible after the events in question, to prevent both forgetfulness and witness coordination to conceal the truth. A comprehensive Department of Justice probe of the leadership is now more urgently needed than ever. It is also imperative that Mr. Trump be included on the list of those being investigated. The media has widely reported his role in many of the relevant events, and there is no persuasive reason to exclude him. First, he has no claim to constitutional immunity from prosecution. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has recognized such immunity only for sitting presidents because a criminal trial would prevent them from discharging the duties of their office. Mr. Trump no longer has those duties to discharge. Nor is exclusion of the former president remotely justified by the precedent President Gerald Ford set in pardoning Richard Nixon to help the country “heal” from Watergate. Even our proud tradition of not mimicking banana republics by allowing political winners to retaliate against losers must give way in the wake of violence perpetrated to thwart the peaceful transition of power. Refusing to at least investigate those who plot to end democracy — and who would remain engaged in efforts to do so — would be beyond foolhardy. Furthermore, the pending state and local investigations in New York and Atlanta will never be able to provide the kind of accountability the nation clearly needs. The New York case, which revolves around tax fraud, has nothing to do with the attack on our government. The Atlanta district attorney appears to be probing Mr. Trump’s now infamous call to Mr. Raffensperger. But that is just one chapter of the wrongdoing that led up to the attack on the Capitol. Significantly, even if the Atlanta district attorney is able to convict Mr. Meadows and Mr. Trump for interfering in Georgia’s election, they could still run for office again. Only convicting them for participating in an insurrection would permanently disqualify them from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Some have expressed pessimism that the Department of Justice would be able to convict Mr. Trump. His guilt would ultimately be for a jury to decide, and some jurors might believe he deluded himself into believing his own big lie and thus genuinely thought he was saving, rather than sabotaging, the election. But concerns about a conviction are no reason to refrain from an investigation. If anything, a federal criminal investigation could unearth even more evidence and provide a firmer basis for deciding whether to indict. To decline from the outset to investigate would be appeasement, pure and simple, and appeasing bullies and wrongdoers only encourages more of the same. Without forceful action to hold the wrongdoers to account, we will likely not resist what some retired generals see as a march to another insurrection in 2024 if Mr. Trump or another demagogue loses. Throughout his public life, Mr. Garland has been a highly principled public servant focused on doing the right thing. But only by holding the leaders of the Jan. 6 insurrection — all of them — to account can he secure the future and teach the next generation that no one is above the law. If he has not done so already, we implore the attorney general to step up to that task. "Almost a year after the insurrection, we have yet to see any clear indicators that such an investigation is underway, raising the alarming possibility that this (Biden) administration may never bring charges against those ultimately responsible for the (1/6) attack.While the Justice Department has filed charges against more than 700 people who participated in the violence, limiting the investigation to these foot soldiers would be a grave mistake"---NYT op-ed This is a curious admission. If there has been no investigation even of Trump Administration officials, then where is the evidence that high-level Trumpers were involved in the 1/6 scrum? It is an assumption. And why not call for an investigation into possible federal intel assets within the scrum? And why did the Capitol Police not show up in force, and then stand down? "The president himself sat back for three hours while his chief of staff was barraged with messages from members of Congress and Fox News hosts pleading with him to have Mr. Trump call off the armed mob whose violent passion he had inflamed. That evidence, on its own, may not be enough to convict the former president, but it is certainly enough to require a criminal investigation." NYT op-ed This rests on the premise that Trump could "call off the armed mob." (Also, only one member of the scrum carried a firearm, and that man was possibly a federal asset, having been released on his own recognizance on 1/7, and never prosecuted.) If there were no connections between the scrum participants and Trump, he had no ability to "call off the armed mob." In his speech on 1/6, Trump advised people to demonstrate peaceably. Evidently, the scrum started when Trump was still blabbering away on the mall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts