Trump did nothing to stop his supporters as they attacked Congress, threatened Pence, witnesses tell Jan. 6 committee

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

So you believe he was entitled to vicariously do nothing when people were being killed and injured in his name?

Please could you just answer the question ?

 

"What is that "legal obligation " ?

"Which law stats that ?"

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Please could you just answer the question ?

 

"What is that "legal obligation " ?

"Which law stats that ?"

The House committee investigating President Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 may find that he did not fulfill his duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” a requirement of each president, detailed in Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution.

The committee might find – and it apparently has, based on testimony presented throughout its hearings – that Trump’s failure to ensure that rioters would not storm the Capitol, and his failure to stop them once they were there, amounted to a dereliction of duty in an informal or colloquial sense.

 

https://theconversation.com/why-donald-trump-cant-be-prosecuted-for-dereliction-of-duty-for-his-inaction-on-jan-6-187407

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Please could you just answer the question ?

 

"What is that "legal obligation " ?

"Which law stats that ?"

Cuts both ways. Please answer my question. Do you consider that Trump was entitled to do nothing?

[Credo]

Article 2, section 3 of the Constitution specifically states that the president take Care that the Laws are faithfully executed.

[Mac Mickmanus]

30 minutes ago, Credo said:

Article 2, section 3 of the Constitution specifically states that the president take Care that the Laws are faithfully executed.

Article 2, section 3, actually says 

 

"Section 3 of Article Two lays out the responsibilities of the president, granting the president the power to convene both houses of Congress, receive foreign representatives, and commission all federal officers. Section 3 requires the president to inform Congress of the "state of the union"; since 1913 this has taken the form of a speech referred to as the State of the Union. The Recommendation Clause requires the president to recommend measures deemed "necessary and expedient." The Take Care Clause requires the president to obey and enforce all laws, though the president retains some discretion in interpreting the laws and determining how to enforce them."

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution

 

Edited August 7, 2022 by Mac Mickmanus

[Mac Mickmanus]

41 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

– that Trump’s failure to ensure that rioters would not storm the Capitol, and his failure to stop them once they were there, amounted to a dereliction of duty in an informal or colloquial sense.

That is the Polices job to retain law and order . 

Its not the Presidents  job to direct the Police .

Its the person in charge of the Police who is responsible for keeping order 

[Credo]

15 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

That is the Polices job to retain law and order . 

Its not the Presidents  job to direct the Police .

Its the person in charge of the Police who is responsible for keeping order 

Ah, but it was his job.  Nobody expects to make a decision when the boss is around.  As a matter of fact, it would be insubordination for others to assume that power.   

 

But overall, this is rather minor.  He started the insurrection and that should be the focus.   

[Mac Mickmanus]

9 minutes ago, Credo said:

Ah, but it was his job.  Nobody expects to make a decision when the boss is around.  As a matter of fact, it would be insubordination for others to assume that power.   

 

But overall, this is rather minor.  He started the insurrection and that should be the focus.   

Trump wasn't the Chief of Police though and he has no authority to  command the Police .

   POTUS isnt  a dictator and he cannot just go around telling everyone else what to do .

   Like, he couldn't walk into an airport and start directing the airplanes about , like he cannot direct the Police about .

   Walks into a KFC and tells the manager to get some more fries in the fryer 

[Credo]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Trump wasn't the Chief of Police though and he has no authority to  command the Police .

   POTUS isnt  a dictator and he cannot just go around telling everyone else what to do .

   Like, he couldn't walk into an airport and start directing the airplanes about , like he cannot direct the Police about .

   Walks into a KFC and tells the manager to get some more fries in the fryer 

Well, that is a lot of babble in one deflection.  Please tell Trump he can't do whatever he wants, the message seems to be lost on him.   

 

So let's look at what he could do:  

1.  He could (and did) order the National Guard troops to be on the ready (his motive was to protect his rally supporters/insurrectionists).   If he can order them to be ready, he can deploy them.  He was asked by his staff to do so.  He didn't.   

 

2.  The National Guard is not under the control of the Chief of Police anywhere.  They were under his control.

3.  In virtually no organization does anyone make a decision that belongs to the boss unless the boss has deferred to the employee.  Trump did not authorize anyone to act on his behalf and he refused to act.  That is a direct action, not an inaction.   

 

4.  He had it well within his power to stop the insurrection.  When he made the call to go home, they left.  That is proof he had a level of control over the entire situation.

 

5.  He planned a rally for a day on which a major congressional action was taking place.  He planned in a location which made problematic behavior not only possible but probably.   He planned to march to the Capitol and that was pre-planned, not spontaneous.  He told them to go; they went.  He eventually told them to go home; they did.  It was, from beginning to end, under his control.   

 

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

That is the Polices job to retain law and order . 

Its not the Presidents  job to direct the Police .

Its the person in charge of the Police who is responsible for keeping order 

I assume you disagree with the use of the National Guard during the George Floyd protests, to restore order and prevent looting after natural disasters, and other occasions. 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

What is that "legal obligation " ?

Which law stats that ?

Whether Trump can be charged with Dereliction of Duty remains to be seen.  However most Americans want a President who takes action when the country is under attack, and an assault on the Capitol while Congress is in session and certifying a Presidential election definitely qualifies as an attack on the country.

 

However it is clear some people aren't interested in Constitutional government, democracy, and rule of law.  Those people are Trump's base.

[placeholder]

10 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Trump wasn't the Chief of Police though and he has no authority to  command the Police .

   POTUS isnt  a dictator and he cannot just go around telling everyone else what to do .

   Like, he couldn't walk into an airport and start directing the airplanes about , like he cannot direct the Police about .

   Walks into a KFC and tells the manager to get some more fries in the fryer 

Has anyone claimed that Trump could command the police? But he does command the Washington, D.C. National Guard.

[ozimoron]

The U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack will receive sworn testimony from Doug Mastriano, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania's nominee to be governor. Mastriano, who has strong ties to far right wing extremists, is a current state senator, and an anti-democracy Christian nationalist who has promoted the QAnon conspiracy theory. He attended Donald Trump's January 6 rally and reportedly was seen at the Capitol that day.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/christian-nationalist-gop-nominee-for-governor-doug-mastriano-to-testify-before-j6-committee/

[ozimoron]

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is meeting on Tuesday with the January 6 committee, a source familiar with the matter told CNN. The deposition will be conducted virtually, the source added.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/09/politics/mike-pompeo-january-6-committee/index.html

[Longwood50]

On 8/7/2022 at 10:10 PM, ozimoron said:

Rubbish. Trump, as CIC,  had a legal obligation to do what he could to reduce violence and restore order to the Capitol proceedings. He failed in that duty.

That is Rubbish.  If anyone had a legal obligation it was the Mayor of Washington DC.  She had control of 3,500 police who are trained, equipped, and available to quell 'CIVIL DISTURBANCES"  There is also 3,400 Capital Hill Police specifically charged with protecting the Capital. Again they are trained for civil not military engagements.  So somehow this force of 6,900 was insufficient, and only Trump calling out the military was the appropriate response. 


This was not a militia it was a group of citizens.  Trump does not control the police, he only has some control over the National Guard.  The National Guard is a part time force scattered throughout Washington DC.  It is also "illegal" to call out the military against civilians unless it is deemed to be an insurrection.  You had 5 people who were found to have guns.  You had somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 protestors.  Hardly an insurrection. 

Had Trump called out the National Guard these January 6, hearings would be about his overstep of power and use of military force against civilians.  The last time the national guard was called out was under George Bush in 1992.  So in 30 years no civil disturbance was somehow so severe that it warranted calling out the National Guard but now suddenly this one is. 

 Trump offered to send National Guard troops to cities in the past to quell violence.  In each case the mayors and/or governors rebuffed his offers. The disturbances in places like Minneapolis, Detroit, Seattle, Los Angeles, etc were must larger, more violent, deadlier and lasted longer.  Pelosi herself stated it was improper for Trump to dispatch federal troops against civilians. 

This is nothing but a dog and pony show designed to continue to try and sling mud and hope some of the mud sticks.  It is no different than when Trump stopped flights from China to impede the spread of Covid and was chastized for discrimination and being  xenophobic and then later blasted for not doing enough soon enough to stop the spread of Covid.  D&&mned if he did, d&&mned if he didn't. 

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

That is Rubbish.  If anyone had a legal obligation it was the Mayor of Washington DC.  She had control of 3,500 police who are trained, equipped, and available to quell 'CIVIL DISTURBANCES"  There is also 3,400 Capital Hill Police specifically charged with protecting the Capital. Again they are trained for civil not military engagements.  So somehow this force of 6,900 was insufficient, and only Trump calling out the military was the appropriate response. 


This was not a militia it was a group of citizens.  Trump does not control the police, he only has some control over the National Guard.  The National Guard is a part time force scattered throughout Washington DC.  It is also "illegal" to call out the military against civilians unless it is deemed to be an insurrection.  You had 5 people who were found to have guns.  You had somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 protestors.  Hardly an insurrection. 

Had Trump called out the National Guard these January 6, hearings would be about his overstep of power and use of military force against civilians.  The last time the national guard was called out was under George Bush in 1992.  So in 30 years no civil disturbance was somehow so severe that it warranted calling out the National Guard but now suddenly this one is. 

 Trump offered to send National Guard troops to cities in the past to quell violence.  In each case the mayors and/or governors rebuffed his offers. The disturbances in places like Minneapolis, Detroit, Seattle, Los Angeles, etc were must larger, more violent, deadlier and lasted longer.  Pelosi herself stated it was improper for Trump to dispatch federal troops against civilians. 

This is nothing but a dog and pony show designed to continue to try and sling mud and hope some of the mud sticks.  It is no different than when Trump stopped flights from China to impede the spread of Covid and was chastized for discrimination and being  xenophobic and then later blasted for not doing enough soon enough to stop the spread of Covid.  D&&mned if he did, d&&mned if he didn't. 

You're wrong. While it's wrong for the Federal Govt to send National Guard troops to the 50 states unless it either issues a Proclamation of Insurrection or the governors request assistance, in Washington D.C. the President is the person the National Guard reports to. So his position is analagous to a governor's. And the National Guard troops were on quick standby at the Armory, 2 miles from the Capitol.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

That is Rubbish.  If anyone had a legal obligation it was the Mayor of Washington DC.  She had control of 3,500 police who are trained, equipped, and available to quell 'CIVIL DISTURBANCES"  There is also 3,400 Capital Hill Police specifically charged with protecting the Capital. Again they are trained for civil not military engagements.  So somehow this force of 6,900 was insufficient, and only Trump calling out the military was the appropriate response. 


This was not a militia it was a group of citizens.  Trump does not control the police, he only has some control over the National Guard.  The National Guard is a part time force scattered throughout Washington DC.  It is also "illegal" to call out the military against civilians unless it is deemed to be an insurrection.  You had 5 people who were found to have guns.  You had somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 protestors.  Hardly an insurrection. 

Had Trump called out the National Guard these January 6, hearings would be about his overstep of power and use of military force against civilians.  The last time the national guard was called out was under George Bush in 1992.  So in 30 years no civil disturbance was somehow so severe that it warranted calling out the National Guard but now suddenly this one is. 

 Trump offered to send National Guard troops to cities in the past to quell violence.  In each case the mayors and/or governors rebuffed his offers. The disturbances in places like Minneapolis, Detroit, Seattle, Los Angeles, etc were must larger, more violent, deadlier and lasted longer.  Pelosi herself stated it was improper for Trump to dispatch federal troops against civilians. 

This is nothing but a dog and pony show designed to continue to try and sling mud and hope some of the mud sticks.  It is no different than when Trump stopped flights from China to impede the spread of Covid and was chastized for discrimination and being  xenophobic and then later blasted for not doing enough soon enough to stop the spread of Covid.  D&&mned if he did, d&&mned if he didn't. 

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

 

 

That is the oath the President takes when assuming office.  "protect and the Constitution of the United States" means defending the government based on the Constitution.  The government was under attack, and Trump did nothing.

 

Trump could have called out the National Guard, or he could have started with a simple tweet.  These were his supporters attacking the Capitol, a tweet telling them to leave would have taken a lot of steam out of the attack.  Trump loves tweeting and never holds back when he disapproves of something.  Trump did nothing.

 

I don't care how many words you use in an attempt to rationalize his inaction, there is no getting around the fact that Trump is guilty of dereliction of duty.  He was a threat to the nation and will be a renewed threat if he is allowed to return to office.

 

People who put Trump before country are not patriot, they are cult members.

[placeholder]

On 8/7/2022 at 11:41 PM, Mac Mickmanus said:

Trump wasn't the Chief of Police though and he has no authority to  command the Police .

   POTUS isnt  a dictator and he cannot just go around telling everyone else what to do .

   Like, he couldn't walk into an airport and start directing the airplanes about , like he cannot direct the Police about .

   Walks into a KFC and tells the manager to get some more fries in the fryer 

But he absolutely had the authority to send the national guard to the Capitol.

[ozimoron]

Feds want 17 years for J6 ‘eye gouger’ who bludgeoned cop with flagpole

The United States Department of Justice is asking for a 17.5-year prison sentence for former New York Police Department Officer Thomas Webster, who was convicted in May of assaulting a police officer during the attack.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/thomas-webster-j6-nypd-prison/

 

[Rimmer]

An off topic post has been removed

[LarrySR]

Seriously. How stupid does one have to be at this point to vote for Trump again?

[ozimoron]

Revealed: Ginni Thomas urged legislators in Arizona and Wisconsin to overturn Biden's election win

 

The wife of U.S. Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas emailed 29 Arizona state lawmakers, some of them twice, for weeks after Donald Trump's election loss, asking them to set aside Biden's popular vote win and select their own electors, and new emails show that she also sent messages to Wisconsin state Sen. Kathy Bernier and state Rep. Gary Tauchen asking them to do the same, reported the Washington Post.

 

“Please stand strong in the face of media and political pressure,” Thomas said in emails sent Nov. 9, two days after major media organizations called the election for Biden. “Please reflect on the awesome authority granted to you by our Constitution.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/ginny-thomas-wisconsin/

 

 

[ozimoron]

'Corrupt as hell': Demands for Clarence Thomas to resign follow new details of wife's election scheming

 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas faced fresh calls to step down Thursday after new reporting revealed that his wife's involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election was broader than previously known, extending to the battleground state of Wisconsin as well as Arizona.

 

"Reminder that Clarence Thomas heard election cases while his wife conspired to overthrow democracy."

 

https://www.rawstory.com/corrupt-as-hell-demands-for-clarence-thomas-to-resign-follow-new-details-of-wife-s-election-scheming/

[Danderman123]

On 7/24/2022 at 12:04 PM, BangkokReady said:

The problem is that Trump represents something, an F-you to the man.  It's weird that it would come to this, but progressives have gone so far that they are "the man" now.  So even if Trump does something bad, he remains a "protest vote" against rampant wokeism and OTT progressiveness.

Wokeism = anti-racism.

 

Rampant anti-racism is a bad thing?

[Danderman123]

On 8/25/2022 at 12:15 PM, ozimoron said:

Feds want 17 years for J6 ‘eye gouger’ who bludgeoned cop with flagpole

The United States Department of Justice is asking for a 17.5-year prison sentence for former New York Police Department Officer Thomas Webster, who was convicted in May of assaulting a police officer during the attack.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/thomas-webster-j6-nypd-prison/

 

Former NYPD officer gets 10 years in prison for participating in the Jan. 6 insurrection

[BangkokReady]

7 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Wokeism = anti-racism.

 

Rampant anti-racism is a bad thing?

 

Wokeism doesn't equal anti-racism, so your immediately onto a faulty argument.

[Danderman123]

7 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Wokeism doesn't equal anti-racism, so your immediately onto a faulty argument.

I guess you are one of those people who don't know what "woke" means, you just think it's bad.

[BangkokReady]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I guess you are one of those people who don't know what "woke" means, you just think it's bad.

 

No.  I'm one of those people who knows what "woke" means in this context.  You're one of those people that wants to pretend that it doesn't mean what people are using it to describe, presumably because you don't like it.  There's not much of a discussion you will be able to have about the term, if you cannot accept what it means.  Otherwise, you're simply arguing over nothing.

 

All you will be capable of is this:

 

Person A: "I'm sick of all this wokeness."

 

You: "What's wrong with wokeness?  Wokeness means antiracism."

 

Person A: "Actually, it now has a new meaning."

 

You: "Well, I don't accept that new meaning.  You're saying you are against anti-racism."

 

Person A: "I'm not though, because wokeness doesn't mean that."

 

You: "Yes it does."

 

And so on.

 

You can see how there's really no point in you trying to discuss something if you cannot understand/accept what is being discussed.

[Danderman123]

On 8/25/2022 at 6:03 PM, LarrySR said:

Seriously. How stupid does one have to be at this point to vote for Trump again?

We will know the answer to that soon.