Parsing Trump: Sedition? Incitement?

deirdre

Senior Member.
You'd need to pay me.
lol i saw a few episodes of this Greg Gutfield? its like a comedy right wing show.. anyway he plays clips of Trumps speeches where Trump makes jokes. and it is funny, so i was telling my mom that. anyway i was visiting her and we were channel surfing and we see Trump so she stops (this was a few months back) and she says "should we try to listen?" and exhausted after an hour of surfing, i said sure why not. lol. we lsitened for like 30 secs then spent a few minutes discussing why anyone would go to one of these things and stand outside all that time to wait for him.

We didnt last 10 mins before we flipped to a Hallmark holiday show (which are horrible and unbearably hokey).
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
His manner of speech becomes more heated, as does the mood of the crowd.
i listened from 46-49:58, then 55:56-55:40 (because he was saying the same thing), then 59:10-59:15

if that was "more heated" then i dont know how anyone was still awake from the first 46 mins. he was just blabbering about the different fraud stuff we all already know...and we can be positive these people have heard a few half dozen times from Trump himself already. I didnt hear him firing up the crowd at all but your video cut off at like exactly 1 hour.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
i remember the quip, and i dont follow q anon at all. (not saying she wasnt a Q person, but just that the Oncoming Storm and Draining the Swamp is what his big mottos are to me....even if he hasnt used it recently.

He used "calm before the storm" on Oct 5 2017, I've not seen any use of the word "storm" outside of hurricanes since then.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
https://apnews.com/article/arrests-district-of-columbia-crime-b21c12ba136e54f884958015a898937c

Many of the people we saw on camera didn't seem to have had any idea of the gravity of their actions. They thought this was something like a post sports championship riot. They're getting a big dose of reality.

I hope this is a sobering up moment for all of the fantasists.



 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Many the people we saw on camera didn't seem to have had any idea of the gravity of their actions. They thought this was something like a post sports championship riot.
Given the polls I posted on the election thread, I don't doubt a large segment of the US population was thinking that, too--maybe still is.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.


https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/05/donald-trump-election-challenge-455233

 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
2021-01-08_06-25-16.jpg
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.577781/gov.uscourts.paed.577781.9.0.pdf

The language is straight from the Rules of Professional Conduct:
Article:

Rule 1.16: Declining or Terminating Representation​

(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:

[..];
(3) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement;

Apparently, this lawyer believes that Donald Trump perpetrated a crime yesterday.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mendel

Senior Member.
I keep thinking about this speech.
Trump never mentions Biden. He never says that he accepts the outcome of the election.

He labels the people who "infiltrated the Capitol" as "demonstrators" when many others call them terrorists.
Article:
infiltrate verb
: to secretly enter or join (something, such as a group or an organization) in order to get information or do harm
: to cause (someone) to secretly enter or join a group, organization, etc.
technical : to pass into or through (something)

This is the most harmless sounding synonym for "break in" or "breach", and it doesn't really describe overpowering police guards, breaking windows, and climbing barricades.

Article:
“Don’t dare call them protesters,” President-elect Joe Biden said Thursday, referring to the pro-Trump mob that had seized the US Capitol the day before. “They were a riotous mob. Insurrectionists. Domestic terrorists. It’s that basic. It’s that simple.”

He’s not the only one using the “terrorism” label to describe Wednesday’s events.

DC Mayor Muriel Bowser called the assault on the Capitol “textbook terrorism.” Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, one of President Donald Trump’s key allies in Congress who helped legitimize the baseless conspiracy theories about the election that led to the violence, also called the attack “a despicable act of terrorism.”

[..]

And 18 USC § 2332b defines the term “federal crime of terrorism” as an offense that:
  • Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct
  • Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the US)

Donald Trump said this on Monday night in Georgia:
Article:

Deleted Tweet from Donald J. Trump​

Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!

Deleted after 4 hours at 7:15 PM on 06 Jan.

This reads like he wants his supporters to march to the Capitol and get the Vice President to overturn the election.
And as soon as the protest turned violent and overcame law enforcement to break into the Capitol, it crossed the boundary to
"influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion". It became terrorism.

"We must get on with the business of America."
Dow Jones.png

He put "patriotism" as the first civic value.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mendel

Senior Member.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55575260

Do we have evidence indicating that the protesters would have walked to the Capitol on their won if Trump had not incited them to do so?
This is the route along Pennsylvania Avenue (Google Maps):
Ellipse To Congress.png
I'm no longer surprised that the Capitol Police did not anticipate a rally held by the President of the United States to turn into a march on a building 30 minutes away.
 
Last edited:

qed

Senior Member
There are countries where elections are stolen via a conspiracy of politicians and the court, Russia and Zimbabwe being two such examples. In such scenarios it is morally acceptable to overthrow the state, in fact it is what all good people should do. But in such countries, the consequences of failure are massive.

It would seem that a large percentage of Americans truly believe this has happened in their country.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
you guys do realize that this is how misinformation spreads. the Trump protesters read tweets of random people "just saying stuff" and they believe it. I really dont see how that is any different from sharing information like these tweets.
This isn't a random person, it's two White House correspondents, Maggie Haberman of the NYT, and Kaitlan Collins of CNN. They speak directly to people who work in the White House.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
you guys do realize that this is how misinformation spreads. the Trump protesters read tweets of random people "just saying stuff" and they believe it. I really dont see how that is any different from sharing information like these tweets.
Kaitlan L. Collins (born April 7, 1992)[1] is an American journalist for CNN. Previously, she served as the White House Correspondent for the website The Daily Caller.

Maggie Lindsy Haberman (born October 30, 1973) is an American journalist. She is a White House correspondent for The New York Times and a political analyst for CNN.

Both have Wikipedia entries (in fact, I just quoted the opening lines from them).
Apologies for not providing that context with my original post.
 

JMartJr

Member
I'm no longer surprised that the Capitol Police did not anticipate a rally held by the President of the United States to turn into a march on a building 30 minutes away.
I remain surprised, given that they seem to have been openly discussing plans for some time

The supporters of President Donald Trump who rioted in the US Capitol building on Wednesday had been openly planning for weeks on both mainstream social media and the pro-Trump internet. On forums like TheDonald, a niche website formed after Reddit banned the subreddit of the same name, they promised violence against lawmakers, police, and journalists if Congress did not reject the results of the 2020 election.


In one interaction four days ago, a person on TheDonald asked, “What if Congress ignores the evidence?”
“Storm the Capitol,” said one reply, which received more than 500 upvotes.

“You’re f---ing right we do."
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/trump-rioters-planned-online

Profanity semi-redacted.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I remain surprised, given that they seem to have been openly discussing plans for some time
The thing is, we don't know what would've happened if Trump hadn't set the whole rally in motion. I think that was the thing they did not anticipate: that the POTUS's action would support the terrorists.

Possibility 1: not a lot of the rioters were ready for violence, so only a small number of hooligans would've showed up at the capitol, and existing level of personnel would've been able to secure the outer perimeter and prevented entry to building. (This was thwarted because Trump sent the whole crowd down to the Capitol.)

Possibility 2: more severe forms of warfare break out because the violent insurgents don't need to be afraid injure the peaceful Trump supporters (because none are there).

Possibility 3: ?

Who knows. There'll be different people responsible for security, and with changed procedures and Biden in the office, we may learn more about what actually happened.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Both have Wikipedia entries (in fact, I just quoted the opening lines from them).
Apologies for not providing that context with my original post.
context should be provided in posts, it would certainly help. But it doesn't really change the point. It's all hearsay. and really no different then when protester people share stories. The only one i can think of is that Judge Jeanine. she's a person of "clout", but i wouldn't trust anything she says.

I'm trying trying to get members to think about issues that surround the spread of misinformation and rumor etc. How do you combat it..you know, the call to arms... if it can not be discussed objectively.

add: hearsay is the wrong point. it is hearsay but without names being named and quotes being owned, then its just rumor. You have no idea if it is true or just activism.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
is hearsay but without names being named and quotes being owned, then its just rumor.
No. It's journalism. This has always been journalism. The journalist's name and reputation attaches to this information; and in this case, also the name and reputation of CNN and the NYT who employ them. That doesn't mean some bad apples don't slip through; but it's rare.

Also please consider we already have second sources for this information.
We have audio of Giuliani's message to that confirms that their strategy was to delay the proceedings as much as possible.
We have seen with our own eyes the messages that Trump put out: that he did not clearly reject violence.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
that he did not clearly reject violence.
yes he did.
just like he adamantly condemned white supremacist's multiple times, but the libs keep trying to push the story he won't.

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Show me. PM me two occasions.
there are youtube video compilations if you wish to hear tone, in the meantime

Article:
Former Vice President Joe Biden wrongly claimed President Donald Trump has “yet once to condemn white supremacy, the neo-Nazis.”

Trump drew criticism for his condemnation of “hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides” after a rally organized by a white nationalist in Charlottesville in 2017, and for saying there were “very fine people on both sides.” But, contrary to Biden’s claim, the president twice specifically condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and he has repeated that condemnation since.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
His words don’t hold value when he reads them off a teleprompter in a script someone wrote for him. On multiple occasions he has read one of these speeches to say one thing, then on his personal Twitter feed later undoes the sentiment with his true thoughts. He’s a professional bullshitter and I wouldn’t trust those condemnations one iota.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
No transcript. Intense violence at the Capitol Building.

At 6:32 - I think this is the Western Portico





From Wednesday night. Malcom Nance is an expert on terrorism and espionage.




Again, no transcript.

 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Get at least 60 minutes in, for two reasons:
-His manner of speech becomes more heated, as does the mood of the crowd.
-You'll get a feeling for the hypnotic quality of this extended experience.

i cant access the NYT. this article from the NYT " How a Presidential Rally turned into a Capitol Rampage" is saying the rioters already were breaking through barriers at the Capitol 20 mins before Trumps speech ended. His speech is 1:11:00.

When in the speech do you feel he got more heated? I can't tell because i've seen clips of Trumps rallies, and he always sounds like that (to my ear). I'm not claiming Trump (like most Americans in the public sphere) doesn't hold some responsibility for this storm.. im just curious about the timeline that particular day... and what you heard in the speech and when... as far as tone (since noone wants to watch it full through)

The girl who was shot sounded like she listened to Trumps full speech, but she was at the front of that hallway mob and the congress people were still in the chamber? I'm so confused about timeline now.

1610497281579.png
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
i cant access the NYT. this article from the NYT " How a Presidential Rally turned into a Capitol Rampage" is saying the rioters already were breaking through barriers at the Capitol 20 mins before Trumps speech ended. His speech is 1:11:00.

Article:
12:15 p.m.–12:50 p.m.
Capitol Crowds Grow
About 15 minutes into his speech, Mr. Trump tells rally attendees to walk to the Capitol. “You have to show strength,” he says.

At this moment, the Capitol grounds are protected by temporary perimeter fences, and there are few officers equipped to defend them.

Supporters leave the rally in a steady stream before Mr. Trump’s speech ends, and they head toward the Capitol.

2021-01-12_16-56-11.jpg
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Thanks. i found a transcript. I hope we can come together and figure out all the issues that led to that storm. Heck, we need to fix the issues that led to Trump getting nominated in the first place! such a sad place America is in.

Article:
After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.

Donald Trump: (18:16)
We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Donald Trump: (18:16)
We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated
The problem with that is that it sounds lawful taken out of context, but given his proclamation that he thinks many of the lawfully slated electors weren't, it's subverting the authority of the government and of the popular vote.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The problem with that is that it sounds lawful taken out of context, but given his proclamation that he thinks many of the lawfully slated electors weren't, it's subverting the authority of the government and of the popular vote.
That's way too deep for me to understand. Didnt they do the same thing in the 2004 election with Ohio? or are the two things different for some reason?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
That's way too deep for me to understand. Didnt they do the same thing in the 2004 election with Ohio? or are the two things different for some reason?
Deirdre, Trump (and many other Republicans) has been telling his base since before the election that there was widespread fraud, and that he had won it by rights; and he still kept on telling them up until January the 6th (and so did every Republican who voted to object to AZ and GA). The lie that the 2020 election was fraudulent provided the motivation for the mob to storm the Capitol.

In 2004, John Kerry conceded the next day. There was, as you may recall, no insurrection.
Article:
Mr Kerry ended his quest, concluding one of the most expensive and bitterly contested races on record, with a call to the president shortly after 11am EST (1600 GMT), according to two officials familiar with the conversation.

Can you see the difference now?
[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do we have evidence indicating that the protesters would have walked to the Capitol on their won if Trump had not incited them to do so?
Evidence? No.

Balance of probability? Yes.

"Gather on Mall to listen to speaker, then march up Pennsylvania, Independence, or Constitution to US Capitol" is the format default for protests of every size and shape and purpose in DC.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Evidence? No.

Balance of probability? Yes.

"Gather on Mall to listen to speaker, then march up Pennsylvania, Independence, or Constitution to US Capitol" is the format default for protests of every size and shape and purpose in DC.
OK. Then it mystifies me how the Capitol Police thought they could handle a protest projected to have 30,000 attendees, some of them known to be violent, with 2400 personnel and no backup.

Philadelphia BLM protest:
Article:
Failures to properly prepare for the size of anticipated protests — despite reliable information that thousands of people would likely converge on City Hall

I tried to google information on what kind of police levels would be appropriate to prepare for this, but couldn't find much.
 
Groups stop outside the security cordon. Two things then happen:

1) There's another speaker that speaks at the foot of the Capitol, followed by a general...milling around. You know, what you think of when you think of protesting. Sometimes they have a set end time, which I've noticed is a sign of either a very small group (they all came on the same bus, so they all leave together) or because there's some sort of permit in place for very large gatherings (related to thinks like portable toilets or tents on the Mall).

2) The group then disperses into smaller groups that go to the House and Senate office buildings or the Supreme Court. This depends on their actual purpose and goal. For instance, they may be delivering petitions to Congressional representatives. Very rarely, they will proceed to a specific government agency, although these tend to be smaller too and will sometimes directly target the agency itself without the march portion.

There seems to have been an expectation that the normal patterns that have decades and decades of experience backing them up would happen here too. Now, this is specific to Capitol related protests, which is why you see a different location and pattern for things like BLM (which targeted the White House and the local DC government more than Congress) or various climate change protests (which occurred in the business district between Pennsylvania NW and New York NW). If you went back in time two weeks ago and asked anyone that lives and works in downtown DC, especially anyone that works along the Mall like I do, this is what they'd have expected. That's sort of why this is a big deal. No one ever goes past First SW to the point that it is almost even off our collective mental radar that someone might.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
That's sort of why this is a big deal. No one ever goes past First SW to the point that it is almost even off our collective mental radar that someone might.
I think (ie. opinion) too, that if Trump supporters rioted after Biden was announce winner (Nov 4th?) like the press kept insisting they would, there would have been expectation and a greater police presence.

But they didnt. that i ever heard of anyway.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Thank you!
2) The group then disperses into smaller groups that go to the House and Senate office buildings or the Supreme Court. This depends on their actual purpose and goal. For instance, they may be delivering petitions to Congressional representatives. Very rarely, they will proceed to a specific government agency, although these tend to be smaller too and will sometimes directly target the agency itself without the march portion.
I haven't seen any information indicating that a permit for a march was filed.
Article:
The application, obtained by DCist/WAMU, was originally filed on November 24 for January 22 and 23. That’s the weekend after the presidential inauguration. But it was amended for January 6 on Saturday, according to an NPS spokesperson.

The permit application was submitted by Women For America First, one of the organizations behind the last two D.C. rallies and a conservative group supporting the “America First” agenda.

The application is for use of both Freedom Plaza and Lincoln Memorial. The expected attendance listed on the application is 5,000.

That article also notes that "on both November 14 and December 12, rallies turned particularly destructive and violent at night". I've quoted elsewhere that the expected attendance had been increased to 30,000.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
since when do laws change because of "context"?
They don't, and I haven't said that they do. Jurisdiction doesn't happen out of context; a trial looks at all the information relevant to the crime.

"only count the electors who have been lawfully slated" has a different meaning when you're lying about which electors were lawfully slated, because then it means that you want some electors to not be slated that are, in fact, lawfully slated.

That's when you get what we got.

If Trump had properly conceded after the Safe Harbour date, or on December 14th at the latest, saying the election was fair, then he wouldn't bear any responsibility for this.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Leifer Trump banned from twitter, account closed. Election 2020 2
Mick West Trump Campaign Lawsuit Regarding Maricopa Overvotes (and Sharpies) Election 2020 12
Z.W. Wolf President Trump And First Lady Test Positive For The Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 126
GeorginaB Twitter is banning accounts linked to QAnon conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Claim: Julian Assange offered pardon to "Lie" for Trump Current Events 20
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 5
Mick West Alex Jones Deplatforming and Related Conspiracy Theories Current Events 49
derwoodii Claim Melania Trump has a double, will the real 1st lady please stand up Conspiracy Theories 11
MikeG Project Dragnet Conspiracy Theories 2
MikeG Buzzfeed Reveals Billion Dollar Hoax General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: Hillary Was Tipped Off On (and Tweeted About) Trump Wiretap General Discussion 0
Mick West Explained: Trump's Secret Service Agent's "Fake Hands" [Hands Ready Position] General Discussion 5
Leifer Paid anti-Trump protesters ? it's a Hoax General Discussion 6
Cube Radio Donald Trump initially said he thought there were "bombs" on the planes on 9/11 9/11 44
Mick West Debunked: Donald Trump Promises to Reopen 9/11 Probe [Fake News] 9/11 4
tadaaa Debunked: Trump says "Republicans dumbest voters" Quotes Debunked 2
Mick West Conspiracy? Trump Repeating Falsely Attributed Quote from Russian Media. Conspiracy Theories 26

Election 2020

Related Articles

Top