Members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol have warned America for three years to take former President Donald Trump at his word.
Now, as Trump is poised to win the Republican presidential nomination, his criminal trials face delays that could stall them past Election Day, and his rhetoric grows increasingly authoritarian, some of those lawmakers find themselves following their own advice.
In mid-March, Trump said on social media that the committee members should be jailed. In December he vowed to be a dictator on “day one.” In August, he said he would “have no choice” but to lock up his political opponents.
“If he intends to eliminate our constitutional system and start arresting his political enemies, I guess I would be on that list,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose). “One thing I did learn on the committee is to pay attention and listen to what Trump says, because he means it.”
Lofgren added that she doesn’t yet have a plan in place to thwart potential retribution by Trump. But Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), who has long been a burr in Trump’s side, said he’s having “real-time conversations” with his staff about how to make sure he stays safe if Trump follows through on his threats.
“We’re taking this seriously, because we have to,” Schiff said. “We’ve seen this movie before … and how perilous it is to ignore what someone is saying when they say they want to be a dictator.”
Once again: they have specific charges they are accusing him of and bringing him to trial for. They can name the specific crimes he is being accused of and when they were committed.
Then you come in with your vague “Democrats probably do illegal things too.” And act like those are the same thing.
Do you understand the difference between “specific” and “vague”?
Once again, what part of innocent until proven guilty are you still struggling with there little buddy?
Probably the discrepancy between what you are saying now, and when you said:
So which is it? Innocent until proven guilty or they’re all criminals?
There is no discrepancy here. You’re just either trolling or have really poor reading comprehension. I said that all the politicians in US, including Trump, are corrupt. Currently, Trump is being investigated, and it is very clearly a politically motivated. So, when Trump is in power he’ll start investigating his opponents the same way.
However, legally, Trump hasn’t actually been convicted of anything. You’re the one trying to claim that Trump is somehow uniquely guilty as opposed to simply being investigated while others aren’t.
Since you’re having so much trouble with this idea. I’ll try to provide a grade school illustration that might help you comprehend this incredibly sophisticated concept. Let’s say you have ten people who did illegal activities such as taking bribes, and you start investigating one of those people, does that mean that say anything about the other nine?
what part of innocent until proven guilty are you still struggling with there little buddy?
To clarify the difference for you one again:
There are specific crimes being charged against Trump. Clear, falsifiable statements. If they are incorrect they can be proven wrong.
Meanwhile, you have vague, unfalsifiable statements of “they must have done something. Because I say so.” If you are incorrect, it cannot be proven because you’ve made no actual claims.
Your argument is so bad that not only isn’t it right, it’s not even wrong. It’s just nothing.
What I actually said was that Trump will go after his opposition and find things to investigate, just like democrats found things to investigate. I never made any arguments about who’s guilty and who’s not guilty. That’s your idiotic argument, and I keep explaining to you why it’s idiotic, but you just can’t seem to get it through your peanut sized brain evidently.
The reality is that there is absolutely no difference between the way Trump is currently being prosecuted and the way Trump will prosecute his opponents. I’m sorry this is a difficult concept for you to understand. Going through life must be really hard when you’re a few fries short of a happy meal.
I’m not resorting to personal attacks. I’ve addressed the “points” you’ve attempted to make here directly and repeatedly.