Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (221828)	1/5/2022 2:54:19 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 358476

>> Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell directly blamed former President Donald Trump for fomenting last month's riot But now, the evidence is already strong and building that the Turtle was wrong, that Trump did NOT "foment" the riot at all. Certainly, there was nothing in his speech that could by any stretch be considered "fomenting". AFAIK, these are the allegedly questionable statements: 1 'We won this election, and we won it by a landslide' 2 'We will stop the steal' 3 'We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen' 4 'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore' 5 'Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard' 6 "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them." Now, none of these are incitement to violence. I know you'll want to argue #4 is, but if you want to find all the politicians who have used that very phrase without inciting any violence, I'm quite sure it is in the tens of thousands, if not more. There just isn't a case for claiming that "fight like hell", when said by a politician, is incitement even if someone becomes violent after hearing it. So, what do you have, exactly, that suggests Trump "fomented" the break-in to the Capitol. Besides, the violence was minimal other than cops murdering people. Under the law the speech would have to be the "likely cause" of the violence. IT must be the reason the violence occurred. I was not there, and I don't know the timeline because I wasn't really paying attention to it. But unless someone can present evidence that Trump actually caused the violence, I think as a matter of law you got nothing. Of course, your expert liars will try to make something out of it. But it seems to me we already had that trial, didn't we?