To start things off, I want to remind people that I'm NOT a Trump supporter any more than I am a Biden supporter.
With that in mind, my frustration with the true enemy, the incompetence of mainstream media, grows by the day.
As pretty much the whole world knows, some Trumpers stormed a government building, a woman got shot, died, and so forth.
In response, the only narrative I can find is that Trump should be immediately removed from office, impeached, arrested for high treason.
But I don't see the connection. Where is it?
One person replied to me saying he directly told the protestors to storm the capitol building. This would be bad, if I could find it. Unfortunately, this is where Google is extremely useless. Whenever a large news event happens, any attempt at searching for anything remotely related becomes impossible. When I searched whether or not it's legal for a president to call for protests, I just get general news and live footage.
So far, I have not found any such quote where he directly tells people to storm the government building.
What I DID find, however, were repeated calls to be peaceful, no violence, and go home 'with peace and love', Law & Order.
So, the president condemns the violence, therefore he has committed high treason and should be impeached and removed immediately?
I mean, I could be a misunderstanding, even lawyers and officials are following this narrative. But it sounds like blind panic to me.
Can a president be directly blamed for his followers acting out?
Sure, he has fed them lies and rallied them up, but he has also so far respected the constitution and I don't see any reason to suspect he wouldn't leave office as intended on the due day. Him being suspicious, skeptical and having tantrums about it, is not illegal in a country where free speech is the primary narrative.
The only crime of speech is to incite violence. Where has he incited violence? I can't find it.
I know it seems super cringey to refer to Martin Luther King Jr when talking about Trump and his supporters, but I think in this case it's quite relevant:
But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity
King here talks of the unheard. In his case, in his generation, the unheard were black people, with the white people being mostly willfully ignorant. I agree with King entirely here. Riots don't just happen because there are a bunch of thugs who want to hurt people.
Every riot has a reason, whether you agree with it or not. I disagree strongly with the BLM riots, for example, but I understand that they believe they are being unheard. I don't actually think this is true, given that literally the largest companies in the world are backing them, mayors across the world are launching cringey fireworks of BLM fists in support, and so on. Hardly seems unheard to me.
But flip to the white folk of MAGA people - from what I can find, virtually NO claims of fraud have actually gone to court. It could be the case that every claim is total nonsense. In the leaked audio that has been yet another call to impeach trump, his side literally says, if the votes are correct and legit, then that's fine - but how can we know when you refuse to show us the data?'
They have openly stated there and then that they are open to the idea that the claims are wrong, but they cannot know. Close to 50% of all Americans polled said they believe the election was stolen - including a minority of democrats. That's a lot of people.
So you'd think it makes sense that such a huge conversation would be heard in court. But nope. Most, if not all, were thrown out 'on procedural grounds'. That's not to say they lacked evidence or was based on disinformation or anything else. It was things like 'your proposal wasn't long enough' or 'you did it too slowly' or 'this didn't happen in your state so it's none of your business'.
So now the people may never know the outcome for sure - they have become unheard in this situation. Trump condemns the violence, while at the same time condemns the intolerable conditions in today's society - in the context of voter fraud and suppression of court action.
And so when the unheard voices riot, shoot, damage, and scare, are we to condemn Trump as if he was a literal leader on the front line giving them directions? Do we, therefore, ban all religions for having followings, some of which turn violent and genocidal?
Do we arrest Biden because his supporters in BLM violently protested for years, and in the case of Portland, 100 straight days. Others committing actual treason by creating illegal autonomous zones designed to secede from the country as their own state, where deadly violence has lead to dozens and dozens of murders? I mean, Biden condemned their violence, so is he responsible and should be impeached as soon as he takes office?
I know my tone is one-sided, but my intention here is a legitimate question. If Trump is found to directly incite violence somewhere, that changes everything, and he should probably be removed, though I don't see really what difference it makes with just 12 days left.
So, can somebody show me this evidence? I mean, if lawyers and government officials agree on this, there must be some kind of evidence right?
Now that the elections are over and the Dems won all 3-levels, I hope they are more responsible. Both sides need to smarten up a lot or things will continue to get worse.
I'd hope so too. It really could go both ways. They could use the power to go wild with their agendas, or take a chill pill. It's up for the challenge in just 2 years, after all
You're missing the forest for the trees. He's driven his supporters to this point over the last few months with his rhetoric. Whether that is enough to remove him from office, I don't know, but I don't think so without direct clear and unequivocal evidence of him calling on his supporters to do this. Although, don't forget the "stand down and stand by" call to the Proud Boys. Anyway, thankfully we've only got another two weeks to wait, so hopefully he can't get up to too much shit in that time.
Yes, but there's nothing illegal about that.
The proud boys are another interesting topic for another day, but they are also largely misunderstood. You can't go to their website on Google, it's been removed, but you can find on duckduckgo, and check their 'manifesto' or whatever they call it.
In summary it's pride of America, but pro-black, pro-LGBT, and so forth.
I'm not too quick to say thankfully. Biden's team are already denouncing, distancing and blocking BLM and Antifa now they've served their purpose as 'useful idiots' to them. I think they won't be satisfied with Biden, neither with the right, obviously.
With both of those in the mix, this instability is ripe to continue as it is. Drooling Biden blabbering 'come on guys' isn't gonna do much
The impeachment should be on its way because he insists that the elections were a fraud without any evidence, of course he hasn't ordered the assault to the senate, that would be definitive but we can't blame only to the protesters when Trumps keeps with his belicist narrative.
The other day with the leaked audios were clear that he is still manipulating everything he can to remain in the power. What more evidence do you need to see in Trump a potential dictator.
What he has to say "Just kill'em all"?.
Questioning the election isn't a crime, though. And like I said in my post, there are still a lot of questions from millions of people going ignored and unheard. In that sense he's doing what his people want him to do, have their voices heard, but now even he's being blocked from having questions answered, riots ensue.
As for the audio, there's equal strength to prosecution and defense. Like I said above his team literally says 'if the votes are correct, that's fine'. They spend most of the hour asking to see the data and being refused. I think there are some kind of legal reasons for not showing, I'm not certain, but it's weird that lawyers would be involved in that call and neither side saying anything about that if so.
The call ended with the opposition saying they will get in touch about getting data to them, which is, in the end, all it was about. Trump saying shit with a bit of frustration and anger, isn't illegal.
He does follow some patterns of a dictator, such as 'create fear only he can protect you from', but a dictator also does this on the provision that you give him almighty power and sacrifice your freedoms. Trump on the other hand is a constitutionalist, as all evidence seems to point out. So far there's no evidence that he would break the constitution by trying to stay in office beyond what he thinks is legal.
Him breaking the law seems much more due to him being an idiot and not knowing the legal consequences of his motor mouth, rather than him being a meticulous dictator driven on ruling the world.
What he has to say - well, if you think from a legal teams perspective, he does need to do things 'beyond reasonable doubt'. So far, it's nowhere near that. The call can in some places be interpreted as a kind of subtle, hidden threat. But at the same time you can listen to it and it just sounds like nothing whatsoever, just part of the conversation. The other team didn't sound at al under threat, they didn't make any pleas or apologies, both sides were in control of their own points of view and nobody directly said anything incriminating.
Whether it actully goes to court and they decide to interpret it either way, well, I'm not a lawyer or a judge so I guess either outcome is possible, but for the impeachment due to tyrannical violence? Nonsense
Isn't a crime while you accept the results after all the investigations and court appeals are done, the court hasn't accepted any of his arguments against the election and he keeps telling the "elections were stolen from us" bullshit.
He even tried to convince to Mike Pence to not signing the recognition of Biden as president.
What part of the constitution gives to the president the choice of accepting or not the elections after all the process has been done. Votes recounted and all the legal stuff it's done. That's not a constitutionalist attitude by far. He also passed the constitution by his balls when separated kids from their fathers with all the inmigration policy.
Indeed he follow patterns of a dictator, he is one step from that, to give orders to military and police to support him as the legit president, and he has already changed a lot of military and White House's security personnel recently, why would he do that if he had to leave the presidence now?.
Yes, and this is a perfectly legal practice. Democrats have done this at least 4 times in the past and the first time in the late 1800's I think, it went through successfully, turned out that there was fraud all over the place, and the republicans ended up winning. No joke.
The most recent time from the democrats was merely 2017!
The other attempts did happen but like this one, didn't go through. Just because it's not common, doesn't mean it's not legal.
That's backwards. What part of the constitution outlaws a president voicing his opinion on a matter? If he was to act upon it and, say, form a militia keeping him housed inside the whitehouse, that would be another story. But just whining and complaining about it is perfectly fine - as long as he leaves on the due date.
Key word there: attitude. It's not unconstitutional, but you may find it's not the right 'etiquette' of a president. But when was Trump ever 'presidential' in attitude? He's just some rich guy.
True, and I have no doubt he has almost violated the constitution countless times, but then, so has Obama (a cliche comparison I know). Forbes even wrote a 'Top 10 constitutional violations in 2013' article.
It's not very useful to say that because every president crosses the line from time to time. The severity of that constitutional breach seems to be the key - and the media's attention to it which drives up the emotions of the people and pushes the agenda further.
I don't personally care how much people hate Trump, however, it's my hope that this level of pure skepticism and outrage will continue through the Kamala Harris era, rather than giving her and Biden a free ride simply on the basis that they are 'not Trump' and faux-left wing.
its ok when we do it, dickhead.
Shut up Nazi
I think the blog is very interesting and even enlightening BUT only looks at the negative side of Trumps legacy. He did secure the southern boarder like no other President ever has and he did get the vaccination available to the world faster than all the experts said could be done.