Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[alfred russel]

No it is not a relevant defense fact, it is the opposite.

No one ever claimed that the pipe bombs were placed DURING the insurrection; that would be absurd.

The belief was and always has been that the the bombs may have been placed beforehand to draw away police from the Capitol. 

That fits completely with the fact that they were initially planted the night before.

Which means the speech Trump made on January 6 did not cause a peaceful assembly to become violent - violent actions were already in motion.

It sets the timeline back for when Trump incited violence. Supposedly the prosecution would have to focus on communications prior to January 6.

[Jacob]

Which means the speech Trump made on January 6 did not cause a peaceful assembly to become violent - violent actions were already in motion.

It sets the timeline back for when Trump incited violence. Supposedly the prosecution would have to focus on communications prior to January 6.

A couple of scenarios:

Scenario 1: Trump and his circle were part of planning the coup attempt. Part of the coup attempt involved people preparing the action on the 6th, including planting pipe bombs on the 5th. At the appropriate time Trump, via his speech, incites the great mass of people not part of the planning to act to provide cover for the the people who are.

Scenario 2: Trump and his circle were not planning a coup attempt. They just poured rhetorical gasoline on everything prior to the 6th. As the situation got more intense, someone plants pipe bombs on the 5th. Then on the 6th, Trump throws a lit match at the gasoline soaked situation via his speech, inciting the attempted coup.

In both cases the speech on the 6th is enough to incite violence given the inflamed situation. The pipe bombs are an indication of how inflamed the situation was. Making the speech was at best grossly irresponsible and at worse an attempt to overthrow the government of the USA.

[Razgovory]

No it is not a relevant defense fact, it is the opposite.

No one ever claimed that the pipe bombs were placed DURING the insurrection; that would be absurd.

The belief was and always has been that the the bombs may have been placed beforehand to draw away police from the Capitol. 

That fits completely with the fact that they were initially planted the night before.

Which means the speech Trump made on January 6 did not cause a peaceful assembly to become violent - violent actions were already in motion.

It sets the timeline back for when Trump incited violence. Supposedly the prosecution would have to focus on communications prior to January 6.

How do you know the bomber was at the rally?

[alfred russel]

Which means the speech Trump made on January 6 did not cause a peaceful assembly to become violent - violent actions were already in motion.

It sets the timeline back for when Trump incited violence. Supposedly the prosecution would have to focus on communications prior to January 6.

A couple of scenarios:

Scenario 1: Trump and his circle were part of planning the coup attempt. Part of the coup attempt involved people preparing the action on the 6th, including planting pipe bombs on the 5th. At the appropriate time Trump, via his speech, incites the great mass of people not part of the planning to act to provide cover for the the people who are.

Scenario 2: Trump and his circle were not planning a coup attempt. They just poured rhetorical gasoline on everything prior to the 6th. As the situation got more intense, someone plants pipe bombs on the 5th. Then on the 6th, Trump throws a lit match at the gasoline soaked situation via his speech, inciting the attempted coup.

In both cases the speech on the 6th is enough to incite violence given the inflamed situation. The pipe bombs are an indication of how inflamed the situation was. Making the speech was at best grossly irresponsible and at worse an attempt to overthrow the government of the USA.

Totally agree. But it is still a relevant defense point.

[grumbler]

Which means the speech Trump made on January 6 did not cause a peaceful assembly to become violent - violent actions were already in motion.

It sets the timeline back for when Trump incited violence. Supposedly the prosecution would have to focus on communications prior to January 6.

A couple of scenarios:

Scenario 1: Trump and his circle were part of planning the coup attempt. Part of the coup attempt involved people preparing the action on the 6th, including planting pipe bombs on the 5th. At the appropriate time Trump, via his speech, incites the great mass of people not part of the planning to act to provide cover for the the people who are.

Scenario 2: Trump and his circle were not planning a coup attempt. They just poured rhetorical gasoline on everything prior to the 6th. As the situation got more intense, someone plants pipe bombs on the 5th. Then on the 6th, Trump throws a lit match at the gasoline soaked situation via his speech, inciting the attempted coup.

In both cases the speech on the 6th is enough to incite violence given the inflamed situation. The pipe bombs are an indication of how inflamed the situation was. Making the speech was at best grossly irresponsible and at worse an attempt to overthrow the government of the USA.

Totally agree. But it is still a relevant defense point.

Defense against what?  Trump and co are not being charged with being innocent before January 6.

[The Minsky Moment]

Which means the speech Trump made on January 6 did not cause a peaceful assembly to become violent - violent actions were already in motion.

It sets the timeline back for when Trump incited violence. Supposedly the prosecution would have to focus on communications prior to January 6.

yes ... that was the house manager's impeachment case ...

[alfred russel]

So grumbler and MM--if you were the defense attorney of Trump and the prosecution played the video in whole or part of the speech on January 6, you wouldn't bring up that violent events were already in motion prior to the speech?

[The Brain]

If they were defense attorneys of Trump they would rock a 60 IQ and be unpaid. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

[Syt]

[Josquius]

Its funny to see the wailing and gnashing of loonyconservatives as the double standards start to be lessened and they face consequences for their nonsense.

[The Minsky Moment]

So grumbler and MM--if you were the defense attorney of Trump and the prosecution played the video in whole or part of the speech on January 6, you wouldn't bring up that violent events were already in motion prior to the speech?

It's evidence for the prosecution.  I would raise it only to minimize it - i.e. we don't know who did it or what the connection was to the Capitol attack.  But more likely I'd say nothing about it.

[Razgovory]

I'm not sure I want to live in country where "only voice is allowed to be heard".  I like music as well.

[crazy canuck]

Finally the rightful place of acapella will be enforced.

[Eddie Teach]

Be a neat trick to stifle noises made by objects falling or striking each other.

[Zoupa]

I'm not sure I want to live in country where "only voice is allowed to be heard".  I like music as well.

Be nice to Oleg now. He needs to fill his quota of Facebook posts and is working with Google translate.