1 minute ago, Andy from Kent said:

 

It absolutely does not necessarily mean that.      You don't take into account those undecided or would rather not say.

 

 

They were'nt accounted for in the OP! I don't have a crystal ball!

 

there seems to be a time and motion quandary here...   with The President doing his rally speech to the crowds around the white house gardens, which went on for whatever duration...  

 

How is it the the very same individuals attending the speech be able to be the same individuals as the rabble rousing rioters looters etc who stormed the Electoral Counts hearing building?

 - and the attacks began at that location only 17 mins after The Don had 'begun' his speech?   

For if you now add up the duration of the Speech, plus the Travel Time it takes humans in a swarm, on feet; to cover that walking duration ( when it can take almost half an hour to cover that distance on foot)

 -  how could the very same people doing the attacking be from amongst the crowd waving their flags etc at the speech?  

 - if they were 'roused' by the Dons speech, they'd have had to be at the speech to hear it at least in most of its entirety ( which was only half way through when the attacks started) 

This is a genuine question, as for me it simply doesn't add up...

 

18 minutes ago, tifino said:

 

there seems to be a time and motion quandary here...   with The President doing his rally speech to the crowds around the white house gardens, which went on for whatever duration...  

 

How is it the the very same individuals attending the speech be able to be the same individuals as the rabble rousing rioters looters etc who stormed the Electoral Counts hearing building?

 - and the attacks began at that location only 17 mins after The Don had 'begun' his speech?   

For if you now add up the duration of the Speech, plus the Travel Time it takes humans in a swarm, on feet; to cover that walking duration ( when it can take almost half an hour to cover that distance on foot)

 -  how could the very same people doing the attacking be from amongst the crowd waving their flags etc at the speech?  

 - if they were 'roused' by the Dons speech, they'd have had to be at the speech to hear it at least in most of its entirety ( which was only half way through when the attacks started) 

This is a genuine question, as for me it simply doesn't add up...

 

Trump started speaking at 12:00 Noon.  About 15 minutes into his speech he urges protestors to march on the Capitol. They start to do so.  They join a crowd that was already at the capitol. At 12:53 the first barriers are breached.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/12/us/capitol-mob-timeline.html

What exactly about this doesn't add up?

trump has blood on his hands and is culpable of neglect during the insurgency.  he was MIA. i hope that will now face charges in a Federal court of law.  trumps post election rhetoric created a powder keg that he set a match too.  

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Most respondents in the national online poll - 79% - said they had already made up their minds about conviction before this week, with the rest doing so this week.

How is it possible to do an online poll without selection bias?

1 hour ago, Mama Noodle said:

Only clinically dishonest people want the capital riot to be viewed in such narrow terms.

Thanks doctor. But really, "clinically dishonest"? It may sound impressive to you but it's actually meaningless. 

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

He may be rich now, but after the civil court cases are heard he will probably not have anything like as much money.

Wait and see...

Numerous posts in this thread, along with replies to them, have been removed for being off-topic, trolling, unsourced and/or unsubstantiated claims, etc etc.

 

the prosecution doesn't have a case, what a shameful circus, all the participants should play in the next season of House of Cards, they surely are good actors  and should get a Grammy nomination????

 

Another Poll  with over 2500 respondents compared to the 500 in the OP....

The survey found 56 percent favor the former president’s conviction

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/537966-majority-says-they-favor-conviction-as-trump-impeachment-trial-begins-poll?rl=1

Majority says they favor conviction as Trump impeachment trial begins: poll

 

A majority of Americans favor convicting former President Trump in his second impeachment trial this week, according to a CBS-YouGov poll released Tuesday.The survey found 56 percent favor the former president’s conviction, the same percentage who said they supported it in an ABC News-Ipsos poll released Sunday.

The same percentage of respondents in the CBS poll also believed the president encouraged the violence by pro-Trump rioters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. This included 88 percent of Democrats, 21 percent of Republicans and 54 percent of independents. In January, Trump’s second impeachment, a historic first, charged him with inciting an insurrection against the United States. Conviction would permanently bar Trump, rumored to be mulling a 2024 bid, from public office.

24 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

the prosecution doesn't have a case, what a shameful circus, all the participants should play in the next season of House of Cards, they surely are good actors  and should get a Grammy nomination????

Translation:  You can't refute anything that was presented.

3 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Yep, and by isolating the events leading up to what happened at the capital and excising your sides violence and destruction over the years, you prove the point of my post to the letter. 

This purely about Trump, no one else.

You may well be partisan, I actually have an open mind on issues, try it, does not hurt.

Please do not attempt to project bias which you may hold onto others, that is conduct unbecoming.

 

3 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

This purely about Trump, no one else.

 

You keep making my point for me, over and over again. 

Inflammatory remark removed

5 hours ago, Nout said:

He did not commit a crime. He will be found not guilty and the democrats will be exposed as the corrupt hypocrits they are.

Ah, but the Dems have the power for the next 4 years! Of course he'll be found not guilty. The Reps are desperate to hang on to the 70 plus million gullible morons who's votes he gained through lies and deception!

 

 

5 hours ago, ricklev said:

Trump is a good, decent, moral, honest, hard working, smart  man who was sacrificing his own fortune for the good of the American people and is being forced to suffer  horrible indignities by power hungry corrupt democrats.  Hopwever,  he accepts their hatred with grace and style.  How could anyone not admire Donald Trump and the fine men in the Sentate who support him?

Aha – – post full of supreme sarcasm, yet quite a few people on here will think that you are being truthful!

6 hours ago, ricklev said:

Trump is a good, decent, moral, honest, hard working, smart  man who was sacrificing his own fortune for the good of the American people and is being forced to suffer  horrible indignities by power hungry corrupt democrats.  Hopwever,  he accepts their hatred with grace and style.  How could anyone not admire Donald Trump and the fine men in the Sentate who support him?

It's hard to believe that in this day and age, people can be so deceived, thankfully the American voting public showed him the door after one miserable, chaotic term and confirmed he is a lying loser! There is absolutely nothing admirable about him! Good riddance! The wimps in the senate are only interested in the sheep who follow him! To call him decent, moral and honest is a disgrace!

3 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

It's hard to believe that in this day and age, people can be so deceived, thankfully the American voting public showed him the door after one miserable, chaotic term and confirmed he is a lying loser! There is absolutely nothing admirable about him! Good riddance! The wimps in the senate are only interested in the sheep who follow him! To call him decent, moral and honest is a disgrace!

President loser

Senate loser

Congress loser

Trifecta.

 

1 term

2 impeachments

60 lost court cases

 

1 terrorist insurrection Winner Winner chicken dinner.

Now the rules have changed I just wonder which previous president 'they' will go after next....

 

4 minutes ago, ukrules said:

Now the rules have changed I just wonder which previous president 'they' will go after next....

 

Why would they bother. Once out of office all that can be done is stop them holding any office again.

 

I dont see any former presidents looking to run for any office.

 

Btw, no rules have changed, there is precedent.

7 minutes ago, ukrules said:

Now the rules have changed I just wonder which previous president 'they' will go after next....

 

Rules did not change they interpretted the Constitution in this manner, it is a precedent.

They voted to make it go to trial, that is democracy at work.

 

23 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

Hopwever,  he accepts their hatred with grace and style

What an absolute crock, there has never been a loser quite like this loser, grace and style is not inciting anarchy by lies and deception, he lost fare and square and just could'nt accept it! If you truly believe that, you are a sad reflection on the minority in your country!

6 hours ago, ricklev said:

Trump is a good, decent, moral, honest, hard working, smart  man who was sacrificing his own fortune for the good of the American people and is being forced to suffer  horrible indignities by power hungry corrupt democrats.  Hopwever,  he accepts their hatred with grace and style.  How could anyone not admire Donald Trump and the fine men in the Sentate who support him?

Trump is a con man and you have obviously been conned.

I think it's worth pointing out.... while Trump's speech that day arguably was the final spark that led to the riot and attempted insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and his resulting impeachment, it was by no means his only element of responsibility for it.

 

Rather, the speech that day was just the culmination of a months-long campaign of baseless and debunked election fraud claims in which Trump had been attempting to de-legitimize the election, and whip up furor among those who believed his stream of lies.

 

Trump didn't just go off the rails of democracy on one day in one speech. He went off the rails months before leading up to the November election and thereafter, including his advance promotion of the ultimate insurrection day riot with the promise to his supporters... it's gonna be wild!

 

"Everyone — millions of people — saw this coming.

 

President Trump invited his followers to D.C. a month ago, promising them it’s “gonna be wild.”

 

They planned the riots openly on social media for weeks, bragging about how many guns they’d bring and the mayhem they’d set off."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/did-you-see-the-law-enforcement-response-to-the-rioters-taking-over-the-capitol-this-is-what-white-privilege-looks-like/2021/01/07/499eddf4-5099-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html

 

AND

 

George Conway, the husband of President Donald Trump's former counselor Kellyanne Conway, said he is concerned Trump is fueling threats of violence ahead of a January 6 protest in support of the president.

 

"Trump is out there now tweeting stuff like, 'it's gonna be wild on January 6th,'" said Conway during a Monday appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "He's inviting and retweeting tweets about people coming to Washington to do Lord knows what. And, you know, it's going to be groups like the Proud Boys...and QAnon, and all the crazies."

 

In a 30-second clip posted to Trump's Twitter account on Saturday, the president touted the upcoming "March for Trump" protest, calling it potentially the "biggest event in Washington D.C. history."

 

https://www.newsweek.com/george-conway-criticizes-trump-fueling-threats-violence-this-scary-thing-1558775

 

So yes, dunno if the storming of the Capitol was specifically pre-planned by Trump and Co., but the broader attempted insurrection against a lawfully elected U.S. government and incoming president clearly was.

 

And the Senate should judge Trump (though they likely won't) on the totality of that... the ongoing attempted insurrection campaign to subvert American democracy, and not only the ultimate events of that one sorrowful day.

 

Just now, jcsmith said:

Trump is a con man and you have obviously been conned.

Correct,

To use the term, "grace and style"( neither of which he has ever had) reflects a mind without reality

Ithink the post is being made with irony and sarcasm

 

22 minutes ago, ukrules said:

Now the rules have changed I just wonder which previous president 'they' will go after next....

 

 

Which prior/other U.S. president has attempted to subvert American democracy and overturn the results of a lawful presidential election that removed him from office?

500 respondents. Statistical blip. Trump will be found not guilty and will run again. Biden will destroy the economy, sacrifice Taiwan and Trump will walk back in.

4 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Which prior/other U.S. president has attempted to subvert American democracy and overturn the results of a lawful presidential election that removed him from office?

 

That's quite irrelevant, now it's acceptable to impeach former presidents surely the list impeachable offences remains the same, if you don't think this will be used then you're mistaken.

 

How long before they start looking into previous presidents actions regarding certain wars over the decades, etc

 

1 minute ago, Albaby said:

500 respondents. Statistical blip. Trump will be found not guilty and will run again. Biden will destroy the economy, sacrifice Taiwan and Trump will walk back in.

God forbid! Americans surely can't be that stupid, can they? ????

10 minutes ago, ukrules said:

 

That's quite irrelevant, now it's acceptable to impeach former presidents surely the list impeachable offences remains the same, if you don't think this will be used then you're mistaken.

 

How long before they start looking into previous presidents actions regarding certain wars over the decades, etc

 

I think that is an hypothesis without sound basis.

This impeachment, is about insurrection, the senate voted to hold the trial. The hypothesis you present is one of catastrophising