Inspiration but no clear co-ordination between Trump and Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, Jan. 6 hearing suggests

[bradlux]

Tuesday’s instalment of the congressional hearings into the events of Jan. 6, 2021, introduced evidence that former U.S. president Donald Trump and his advisers talked about a march on the U.S. Capitol days in advance — and that some of those who eventually turned up were paying close attention.

But it did not necessarily show the kind of explicit co-ordination between Trump and the more militant groups that came to Washington armed and determined to stop the certification of the 2020 election results that some had been anticipating.

The House committee investigating the Capitol riot showed, through social media posts, that Trump was rallying his supporters to Washington for the Jan. 6 certification as early as Dec. 19.

Inspiration but no clear co-ordination between Trump and Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, Jan. 6 hearing suggests

Tuesday's instalment of the congressional hearings into the events of Jan. 6, 2021, introduced evidence that former U.S. president Donald Trump and his advisers talked about a march on the U.S. Capitol days in advance — and that some of those who eventually turned up were paying close...

worldabcnews.com

 

[pjmret]

do you need "clear coordination" to commit a crime?

 

[the annoying thing]

do you need "clear coordination" to commit a crime?

Yes you do. The I think or I suspect or it might be isn't enough for a court of law other wise its just railroading because of political hate You see its no crime to ask your supporters to rally or show up at any event or protest. It only becomes a crime when there is evidence that you are involved in a conspiracy to commit a crime. Just as with the protests at the justices home or any home or location. Its basic law which I'm fairly knowledgeable of .
The dame goes for those involved in protesting out side the justices , unless the people who gave out the info on the addresses and who got people to go there . They can legally do so and have only committed a crime when they have been involved in a conspiracy to do so. Reference the RICO laws and you will get a better understanding
Yes you want him to be guilty bu to be guilty you have to prove he was involved in some criminal activity just as the 2 impeachments failed this will to . Its a great show boat to try and get hopes up so he can run again but it was destined to fail just as the impeachments failed .
.

 

[pjmret]

"Yes you do. "

no you don't. Just an attempt can be a crime. "inciting" can be a crime. "attempted" can be a crime. Just your actions alone can be a crime. No interactions, strong or weak, are required for you to commit a crime.

 

[Boris Norris]

Yes you do. The I think or I suspect or it might be isn't enough for a court of law other wise its just railroading because of political hate You see its no crime to ask your supporters to rally or show up at any event or protest. It only becomes a crime when there is evidence that you are involved in a conspiracy to commit a crime. Just as with the protests at the justices home or any home or location. Its basic law which I'm fairly knowledgeable of .
The dame goes for those involved in protesting out side the justices , unless the people who gave out the info on the addresses and who got people to go there . They can legally do so and have only committed a crime when they have been involved in a conspiracy to do so. Reference the RICO laws and you will get a better understanding
Yes you want him to be guilty bu to be guilty you have to prove he was involved in some criminal activity just as the 2 impeachments failed this will to . Its a great show boat to try and get hopes up so he can run again but it was destined to fail just as the impeachments failed .
.

You need to read the exact meaning of impeachment. Neither failed. What failed was the senate not having the numbers but he was impeached nonetheless.

Check the facts on impeachment.

As for you defining what a crime is etc, Trump will be held responsible for the riots. There's no doubt about it. He was involved in it up to his ears. It doesn't matter what you think because you obviously, because of your ignorance regarding impeachment, don't know one thing about interpreting the law.

In the case of Trump, the doj will decide to go ahead or not. The commission is purely to gather evidence for the doj and at this stage its all against Trump and he will no doubt be charged. Whether they impose a penalty or dismiss it, who knows.

 

[the annoying thing]

You need to read the exact meaning of impeachment. Neither failed. What failed was the senate not having the numbers but he was impeached nonetheless.

Check the facts on impeachment.

As for you defining what a crime is etc, Trump will be held responsible for the riots. There's no doubt about it. He was involved in it up to his ears. It doesn't matter what you think because you obviously, because of your ignorance regarding impeachment, don't know one thing about interpreting the law.

In the case of Trump, the doj will decide to go ahead or not. The commission is purely to gather evidence for the doj and at this stage its all against Trump and he will no doubt be charged. Whether they impose a penalty or dismiss it, who knows.

Yes they did fail dun dun You know boris there is a difference between between being charged with a crime and found guilty of a crime

 

[pjmret]

he was impeached, but not convicted.

 

[the annoying thing]

he was impeached, but not convicted.

Correct . impeachment means nothing unless you are convicted.

 

[pjmret]

maybe it means nothing to you. but it means it was enough to get at least half the house to put their reputations on the line. they wouldn't do that if there wasn't something significant.

 

[Boris Norris]

Correct . impeachment means nothing unless you are convicted.

I'll explain for you because you obviously don't know.

Impeachment occurs when a person is accused of a crime and is found guilty by the house of reps. It can only be stopped if the decision to stop the action is defeated on numbers in the house. If it proceeds to the point where the reps. Decision is handed to the senate, it us that moment when the impeachment is confirmed and recorded as such.

Being found not guilty by the senate DOES NOT CHANGE THE ORIGINAL IMPEACHMENT. Try to understand that.

I find is gobbsmacking you patriots don't understand or can interpret the constitution you all bellow about. Its blind patriotism to a party. Extreme ignorance towards such a sacred document.

At least do yourself a favour and familiarise yourself with it before belching lies.

 

[Handlethetruth]

The Republicans in the senate would never convict a republican president ever. Doesn't matter the evidence.

 

[Handlethetruth]

Tuesday’s instalment of the congressional hearings into the events of Jan. 6, 2021, introduced evidence that former U.S. president Donald Trump and his advisers talked about a march on the U.S. Capitol days in advance — and that some of those who eventually turned up were paying close attention.

But it did not necessarily show the kind of explicit co-ordination between Trump and the more militant groups that came to Washington armed and determined to stop the certification of the 2020 election results that some had been anticipating.

The House committee investigating the Capitol riot showed, through social media posts, that Trump was rallying his supporters to Washington for the Jan. 6 certification as early as Dec. 19.

Inspiration but no clear co-ordination between Trump and Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, Jan. 6 hearing suggests

Tuesday's instalment of the congressional hearings into the events of Jan. 6, 2021, introduced evidence that former U.S. president Donald Trump and his advisers talked about a march on the U.S. Capitol days in advance — and that some of those who eventually turned up were paying close...

worldabcnews.com

Now they are putting the pieces together that paint a different picture all together.

 

[Boris Norris]

The Republicans in the senate would never convict a republican president ever. Doesn't matter the evidence.

They might not have any say in the matter. The further this goes, the worse it looks for their chances of holding it.