Trump says he’ll jail his opponents. Members of the House Jan. 6 committee are preparing
Trump says he’ll jail his opponents. Members of the House Jan. 6 committee are preparing
Much of the new investigation has focused on whether the select committee had hidden information that may have exonerated Donald Trump.
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.”
You're viewing part of a thread.
Because of how Trump responded in both scenarios. On Jan 6, he provided no additional support to capitol police, despite being urged to do so, but on May 29, the Secret Service pepper sprayed protesters, various policing units were brought in, and troops and National Guard were deployed.
The response was so different between the two events that it's clear Trump was okay with Jan 6 (they were trying to keep him in power) but not okay with May 29 (they were opposing inaction on police reform). On Jan 6, multiple people died, and many more were hospitalized. On May 29, the were a few hospitalizations among police, but nothing life threatening. If Trump responded similarly to both, I'd be more sympathetic, but his active lack of action doesn't instill trust.
I'd like to see the various lawsuits resolved quickly, because it's getting to be a very political issue. Ideally, he would've resolved everything years ago, but he continually delayed and now we're in a massive mess. That said, I don't see him as a victim here, this is exactly the expected result for his actions. Whether he's guilty should be determined by the courts though, not public opinion.
You are just repeating the media lines. If you have any doubts then look into the stories better and see the obvious double standard. Just take one second to look at the steve baker prosecution.
Or you can provide evidence...
For Steve Baker, it looks pretty open and shut:
“The only thing I regret is that I didn’t like steal their computers because God knows what I could’ve found on their computers if I’d done that. But by the time I got into Pelosi’s office, unfortunately there was some damage done,” Baker said, according to the FBI.
So, not only did he essentially admit to the charges, but he showed intent to break other federal laws.
Maybe he was paraded about a bit to "make an example" of him, idk, I would need to review video footage to decide if it seemed excessive. However, journalists don't get additional protections and can't just break federal laws whenever they want to get a scoop and expect no charges.
So I honestly don't see a double standard here, what I see is you potentially buying into conspiracy BS.
And here's another article in case you don't like the AP or whatever. As a libertarian myself, I don't want to be associated with this idiot. If he thinks Trump is in any way libertarian, then he's mistaken about what to label himself. A self-respecting libertarian wouldn't trespass on federal property in an attempt to overthrow a democratic election, that's a clear violation of the NAP and I reject that nonsense. I'm no fan of Biden, but that doesn't mean I want to overthrow an election to put another piece of crap in office. I very much dislike both Biden and Trump and plan to not vote for either this election.
So what you are saying is that people cant make jokes anymore and the freedom of speech is gone?
Please tell me what his crime was very specifically? Why should the other press that were there were not be prosecuted? You know nothing on this case are literally using propaganda and claim to be a libertarian, bullshit.
His crime was likely trespassing related. From my second link:
Unlike Baker, Schaffer was wearing an official Capitol press credential, and has not been charged.
So Schaffer had business there, Baker was only there as part of the riot. So it makes complete sense for Baker to be charged and not Schaffer.
I didn't find the specific charges in a quick search (it's probably in the court fillings somewhere), but I don't see any evidence to suggest it was because of "scary words" like he claims, that's just how he chooses to represent it.
He was not supposed to be in Pelosi's office or anywhere in the Capitol building, so he got charged with the rest of those involved in the riot.
If you have more details (i.e. the actual charges), I'm interested in looking it over. Perhaps I'm mistaken, I'm just using the evidence before me and it seems open and shut to me.
Good, you gave an actual thing he did and actually fell right into my point. Why was the 5th person through the broken window not prosecuted when he was also a journalist? You dont need to be displaying credentials to be press. I love how you claim to be a libertarian but then want them to go after journalists for being journalists, totally libertarian!
Baker was only there as part of the riot.
Prove it. He is literally on video doing journalism.
You dont need to be displaying credentials to be press
It has nothing to do with "being press," it has to do with trespassing. One was invited to be there, the other wasn't, so there's an argument that they would be treated differently under the law. It's simple property rights, which any libertarian should understand...
My opinion is they should both be charged because both are obviously not there through the normal, accepted means. But prosecuting everyone is unreasonable, and largely a waste of the court's time.
He is literally on video doing journalism.
He is on video illegally trespassing. You can do both journalism and trespassing at the same time. Likewise, speech can also be illegal in certain circumstances as well, so I'm guessing there was some of that as well. You can also hear him admit to intent to steal federal property (Pelosi's computer), which may or may not hold up in court.
So what I see is:
- blatant trespassing on federal property
- potential participation in damage to federal property (haven't looked through all the video)
- potential illegal speech
So I agree that he should be charged and have his day in court. The government obviously has the obligation to prove guilt, and the video evidence and his own words would certainly be evidence there.
Exactly, if it was about them being where they were not supposed to be then the other 30 or so journalist that were there should all be under arrest and being prosecuted. Why is it only three of them that are conservative leaning, not the CNN guy that was the 5th through the broken window? Or any of the others?
Who is the CNN guy you're talking about? I'm not seeing any decent sources for anyone beyond the first four who entered through the window, to who were all charged.
My understanding is that CNN didn't have any journalists there, other than those already inside the capitol. If you have solid sources to the contrary, please link them.
Most of the people there were obviously conservatives, else why would they be there? There were certainly some independent journalists and whatnot, but my understanding is that the ones causing the damage and riling up the crowds were largely far right activists.
Sorry it was the NYT not CNN, and it was actually 60 other journalists were there not 30.
Most of the people there were obviously conservatives, else why would they be there?
Because they were journalists covering a story, literally just like the guy this story is about is not a conservative. He just didnt treat jan 6th like a sacred event like he was supposed to.
If all he did was trespass like all of the other 60 journalists, why are they all not getting the same treatement?
There's also motive and intent. A journalist trespassing to record is a very different thing from a protester trespassing to damage property and hurt people. I would need to see the court documents to know what precisely a given individual was charged with and the arguments for and against it to get a feel for why they were targeted. The goal in prosecuting events like this isn't to catch everyone, but to catch enough people to prevent something similar from happening again.
The facts are:
- a lot of people trespassed
- a lot of property was damaged
- people were injured and killed
- credible threats were made to elected officials
There absolutely needs to be a legal response to that, but it's impractical and probably undesirable to charge everyone involved, only the worst offenders. If you can show that some of those other individuals were worse offenders, that would make a compelling argument. However, just throwing out whataboutism isn't going to convince me and just sounds like conspiracy nonsense to me.