I'm more than happy to be quite specific on this question, your oblique answer notwithstanding. Trump said that the protesters were to be [in relevant part]
"peaceful" on capital hill. I'm just puzzled by the fact that you've made this
judgment, the grounds for which, you are unable or unwilling to recite.
It's lucky then, that I so consistently provide the opportunity for you to clear up any misunderstanding.
Of course it does! It says in relevant part
"The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." If you can't be removed from office you don't qualify to be tried in the Senate, because the words there are NOT
may be removed THEY ARE
shall be removed!
There is precedent for treating African-Americans as chattel, but we don't do that! Why? The point is not the precedent, it's the clear language of the Constitution.
I'm not interested in reading analysis that says the unambiguous language of the Constitution can be ignored.
It's a salient issue, as they identify exactly where the video was taken, on the map. I'm very familiar with Washington DC as I had an office there for 10 years, in George Town. That video was taken at about 13th and L Street NW.
View attachment 696
There are a number of problems with that kind of protest. The only reason for everyone to dress alike is to hide the perpetrators of crime. This further illustrates that Trump supporters didn't go to Washington to commit crimes.
You are using language grounded in postmodern nonsense, a body of scholarship fabricated out of whole cloth, that has no real meaning in Standard English. I agree it's a very specific kind of nonsense, but it's still nonsense. If you can't say it in Standard English, and defend it in Standard English, then what you are talking about has no basis whatsoever in reality. It may as well be a creaking door hinge.
We agree.
The whole thing was just fine.
You honestly believe those words were directed to felons? That is an insane interpretation.
If those words were directed to the felons this would be an issue, but they obviously were not. He was directing those words to the same people he told to protest peacefully. The felons didn't listen to him then, why would they listen to him now?
I give you every opportunity to correct every misunderstanding. I don't challenge you on any correction, and your treatment of Trumps words is this withering? That's not setting off any alarm bells for you?
"Them" meaning his supporters, not the felons.
The police arrested the felons, they couldn't go home. It's a nonsensical interpretation.
Why not? Not likely to be less accurate than the
crucify-Trump-first-last-and-always press.
Well, if Marge from Omaha wanders up there and sees that the door are open, which at one point they were, and all she has seen is people going in and milling about, there could conceivably be an application for that. New facts informing our understanding of what happened are coming out all the time.
Fight is far from the only example of analogical language we use in this type of discussion.
There is a sea of video of Adam Schiff insisting they have proof of coordination or what ever word he was using that day. He would get in these interviews even as the Mueller report was coming out still defending the charge.
Okay, but we still disagree, on the notion that the praise was directed at rioters.
The examples I see in video clearly qualifies as assault.
The protesters shouted down Sarah Huckabee in a restaurant so severely that the owner blamed her, and insisted she leave. A guy shot a Trump support in the chest, because he was
"one of them." What qualifies as too far?
You don't conclude someone is inciting sedition because they mangle metaphors. That is crazy.
No, there are still cases that will be alive long after the 20th.
These are all points concerning which no court has weighed in on the evidence.