Jump to content

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


Scott

Recommended Posts

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Mac Mickmanus
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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/

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...