Pence security detail called family members to say goodbye on 1/6

[Honeyman]

Are you just trolling me now? I believe I've been crystal clear on numerous occasions in here on how I feel about the legitimacy of the election results. I'm not going there again. My opinion hasn't changed is all I will say.

I also note that you did not answer what Trump specifically did to violate the Constitution or what part of the Constitution he allegedly violated. Can't say I'm surprised you can't actually answer that question.

Does the 12th amendment count?

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;-The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President-The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

[bmw]

Ok - we're halfway there - you've cited a part of the Constitution.

Now what specifically did Trump do to violate that Amendment?

[Honeyman]

Ok - we're halfway there - you've cited a part of the Constitution.

Now what specifically did Trump do to violate that Amendment?

If you'd watch the hearings, you'd know. It's been laid out very clearly, all thru testimony of Republucan state officials, Trump appointees, White Houses employees, etc. His obstruction of justice is obvious to anyone with an open mind.....which is probably why you cannot see it.

And to blunt your next obvious question, I do not know why the DOJ has yet to file charges. I trust they will.

[bmw]

So you can't plainly and concisely spell out what he did that violated the Constitution. Got it.

[craig11152]

...... this star chamber of a show trial that isn't going to accomplish a damn thing except make the people that already hate Trump possibly hate him more and the people that love Trump most likely make them defend him more.

I would suggest a third group is middle of the road people who were unsure what to think of Trump's Jan 6 roll who are now forming an opinion.
Those are people who can swing a tight election because they aren't committed to either party.

So you are basically saying that it is a show trial being held for purely political purposes. I agree.

Not what I was "basically saying" at all. I don't know how you could connect those dots.

Well I thought it was pretty easy to connect those dots. Being as this show trial can't convict Trump of anything, because the vast majority of quote unquote evidence is hearsay and conjecture, it's my thought that it's being held to cast Trump in a negative light to sway voters that otherwise might support him. As your post suggested.

This isn't a trial, show or otherwise. It is a Congressional hearing, an investigation. Since you are clearly in one of the two groups you see I guess I will cut you some slack. But since I pointed out a third group I hoped you might wrap your head around the possibility that useful information is mixed in and that hearsay and conjecture can be factually accurate if not provable.

[Honeyman]

...... this star chamber of a show trial that isn't going to accomplish a damn thing except make the people that already hate Trump possibly hate him more and the people that love Trump most likely make them defend him more.

I would suggest a third group is middle of the road people who were unsure what to think of Trump's Jan 6 roll who are now forming an opinion.
Those are people who can swing a tight election because they aren't committed to either party.

So you are basically saying that it is a show trial being held for purely political purposes. I agree.

Not what I was "basically saying" at all. I don't know how you could connect those dots.

Well I thought it was pretty easy to connect those dots. Being as this show trial can't convict Trump of anything, because the vast majority of quote unquote evidence is hearsay and conjecture, it's my thought that it's being held to cast Trump in a negative light to sway voters that otherwise might support him. As your post suggested.

This isn't a trial, show or otherwise. It is a Congressional hearing, an investigation. Since you are clearly in one of the two groups you see I guess I will cut you some slack. But since I pointed out a third group I hoped you might wrap your head around the possibility that useful information is mixed in and that hearsay and conjecture can be factually accurate if not provable.

To underline Craig's point, the recent editorials by Murdochs publications claiming he is unfit for office specifically reference Trumps inactions for 3+ hours on January sixth as their reason. This information and detailed timeline was brought out by the committee.

[Bryce]

...... this star chamber of a show trial that isn't going to accomplish a damn thing except make the people that already hate Trump possibly hate him more and the people that love Trump most likely make them defend him more.

I would suggest a third group is middle of the road people who were unsure what to think of Trump's Jan 6 roll who are now forming an opinion.
Those are people who can swing a tight election because they aren't committed to either party.

So you are basically saying that it is a show trial being held for purely political purposes. I agree.

Not what I was "basically saying" at all. I don't know how you could connect those dots.

Well I thought it was pretty easy to connect those dots. Being as this show trial can't convict Trump of anything, because the vast majority of quote unquote evidence is hearsay and conjecture, it's my thought that it's being held to cast Trump in a negative light to sway voters that otherwise might support him. As your post suggested.

This isn't a trial, show or otherwise. It is a Congressional hearing, an investigation. Since you are clearly in one of the two groups you see I guess I will cut you some slack. But since I pointed out a third group I hoped you might wrap your head around the possibility that useful information is mixed in and that hearsay and conjecture can be factually accurate if not provable.

If this is indeed a hearing or investigation into the happenings that took place in January 6th, why is it almost exclusively focused on Trump and his actions or lack thereof? There are plenty of other things that should be looked at.

[Matt]

...... this star chamber of a show trial that isn't going to accomplish a damn thing except make the people that already hate Trump possibly hate him more and the people that love Trump most likely make them defend him more.

I would suggest a third group is middle of the road people who were unsure what to think of Trump's Jan 6 roll who are now forming an opinion.
Those are people who can swing a tight election because they aren't committed to either party.

So you are basically saying that it is a show trial being held for purely political purposes. I agree.

Not what I was "basically saying" at all. I don't know how you could connect those dots.

Well I thought it was pretty easy to connect those dots. Being as this show trial can't convict Trump of anything, because the vast majority of quote unquote evidence is hearsay and conjecture, it's my thought that it's being held to cast Trump in a negative light to sway voters that otherwise might support him. As your post suggested.

This isn't a trial, show or otherwise. It is a Congressional hearing, an investigation. Since you are clearly in one of the two groups you see I guess I will cut you some slack. But since I pointed out a third group I hoped you might wrap your head around the possibility that useful information is mixed in and that hearsay and conjecture can be factually accurate if not provable.

If this is indeed a hearing or investigation into the happenings that took place in January 6th, why is it almost exclusively focused on Trump and his actions or lack thereof? There are plenty of other things that should be looked at.

Would 1/6 have happened if Trump had accepted that he lost?

[bmw]

Can somebody please tell me in concise, easy to understand language any of the following:

A - what crime he committed
B - what specific action he took that constituted said crime

and/or...

C - what part of the Constitution he violated
D - what specific action he took that violated the Constitution

If he's guilty as charged, these should be easy questions to answer. But you all seem to be struggling mightily.

[Honeyman]

Can somebody please tell me in concise, easy to understand language any of the following:

A - what crime he committed
B - what specific action he took that constituted said crime

and/or...

C - what part of the Constitution he violated
D - what specific action he took that violated the Constitution

If he's guilty as charged, these should be easy questions to answer. But you all seem to be struggling mightily.

He took an oath of office to the highest position in this country. Those words included: "and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Then he encouraged people he knew were armed, to march to the Capitol to thwart the results of an election that he knew was proper. When complete chaos broke out, he did NOTHING for over three hours to stop it.

You obviously have a different idea of what the words of the Constitution say, stand for, and mean. To myself and many others, he has failed in the most obvious way.

[Matt]

Can somebody please tell me in concise, easy to understand language any of the following:

A - what crime he committed
B - what specific action he took that constituted said crime

and/or...

C - what part of the Constitution he violated
D - what specific action he took that violated the Constitution

If he's guilty as charged, these should be easy questions to answer. But you all seem to be struggling mightily.

So he has to break the law or violate the constitution to prove to you that he is unfit for the office he once held? Here's a simple question for you: what will it take for you to quit Trump?

[bmw]

FINALLY an answer. Now I'll do my best to respond:

He took an oath of office to the highest position in this country. Those words included: "and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Yep.

Then he encouraged people he knew were armed...

I'm going to stop you right there. How many protesters were there? Tens of thousands? I think it would be a fair assumption, direct knowledge or not, that a significant number of people were armed (and legally at that). I think it is fair to assume that within ANY large enough group of people, regardless of what they're doing, there are a certain number of armed individuals. Moving on...

...to march to the Capitol

Yep. Perfectly legal.

to thwart the results of an election that he knew was proper.

I can't say whether Trump believed the election was rigged or not. My gut feeling is that certainly as of January 6th that this was his genuine belief. That's irrelevant though. "To thwart the results of an election." That's where I disagree. To "thwart" means to "prevent (someone) from accomplishing something." I saw nothing in his Jan 6 speech that rose to the level of encouraging his supporters to actually interfere with Congress doing its job. He told them to peacefully and patriotically make their voices be heard. That to me sounds like the definition of a legal protest.

When complete chaos broke out, he did NOTHING for over three hours to stop it.

This is where you might finally have a legitimate point. I agree he was far too passive in his immediate response to news breaking that the Capitol had been breached. Now that said, I'm not sure there's much he could have actually done to stop it once it happened or to even mitigate the damage - that horse was already out of the barn. But he certainly should have forcefully spoken out against what was happening and immediately. Does his inactivity disqualify him from future office? That's for everyone to decide.

All that said, there is one issue that I would like to get to the bottom of - one the answer to of which could cast Trump's actions that day in a much better light - and that is the issue of whether he called for 10,000 National Guard troops in the days leading up to Jan 6. The claims here need to be further investigated:

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/t ... ary-donald

[bmw]

So he has to break the law or violate the constitution to prove to you that he is unfit for the office he once held? Here's a simple question for you: what will it take for you to quit Trump?

As Joe Biden would say, come on, man! You were the one who just on the page prior in this very thread implied that Trump violated the Constitution by asking the following:

We're Trump's actions or inactions on 1/6 authorized by the constitution?

That is what I have been responding to. Whether he is "unfit" is a much more subjective question, and is also relative in scope. I would say he's far more fit for the job than are Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, so if my choice is Trump vs. one of those two individuals, you better believe that's who I'll be voting for.

[Turkeytop]

That is what I have been responding to. Whether he is "unfit" is a much more subjective question, and is also relative in scope. I would say he's far more fit for the job than are Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, so if my choice is Trump vs. one of those two individuals, you better believe that's who I'll be voting for.

Would you vote for him, knowing that might be your country's last ever free election?

[Matt]

That is what I have been responding to. Whether he is "unfit" is a much more subjective question, and is also relative in scope. I would say he's far more fit for the job than are Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, so if my choice is Trump vs. one of those two individuals, you better believe that's who I'll be voting for.

Would you vote for him, knowing that might be your country's last ever free election?

That is an absurd, over the top insinuation.