What Ulysses Grant Can Teach Joe Biden About Putting Down Violent Insurrections

a reply to: butcherguy

OK, if it is that simple then he will be home by Tuesday afternoon. However it depends upon it being THAT simple. I can only suppose that the Dems who brought these charges include a number of lawyers who consulted other lawyers of constitutional expertise who believe that they have the goods on him. Relying on the ''madness'' and incompetency of the Dems, which I do not count out entirely by the way, may not be the best course of defense for him going forward.

So ironic. If the Patriots wanted to kill them they would all be dead. Now anyone that doesn't fit the leftist Nazi agenda that just happen to walk into the Capitol will be persecuted for taking a selfie.

They forced them to do something by denying the evidence of voter fraud. The fact that they think they need an Army for security. With barbed wire, speaks volumes on how much the average American thinks of them.

a reply to: butcherguy


PS

I cleaned up 2 feet of snow this morning, then I drove to work on snowy roads. Not once did I see any evidence of ongoing violent insurrection.

It is rather difficult to imagine that there would be much if any signs of ongoing violent insurrection with two feet of snow on the ground and if forecasts are to be believed, more on the way.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

please tell me why the bombing of the Senate in 1983 was not pushed by the media as violent insurrection, and the shooting at Congress in the Capitol Building in the 1950's likewise.

I am not educated on either of those two events. However to answer your question with only a guess, it might be that neither of those events was done at the behest of a sitting president. If he did not specifically incite them, he at least ''egged'' them on with his rhetoric.

link me to the words that Trump said. His exact words.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: butcherguy

OK, if it is that simple then he will be home by Tuesday afternoon. However it depends upon it being THAT simple. I can only suppose that the Dems who brought these charges include a number of lawyers who consulted other lawyers of constitutional expertise who believe that they have the goods on him. Relying on the ''madness'' and incompetency of the Dems, which I do not count out entirely by the way, may not be the best course of defense for him going forward.

Like their first impeachment of Trump?
Yep, they were well prepared for that. The 'witnesses' telling of second and third hand information.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

In order to try and stay positive I seem to have a bad habit of filing such facts away until someone else mentions them... for better or worse.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: butcherguy

I am no lawyer for the prosecution Mr. Guy, I don't have to show you anything other than my ''guess''. I'm not the one bringing charges. I will be watching this trial from the sidelines of my office space as I suppose you will be doing as well. I can, again, guess, that you will be rooting for acquittal of simple nullification of the impeachment.

So meanwhile, the prosecution is lining up it's ducks with expert witnesses on all things pertinent to the charges while the defendant, Donald Trump, has just let go his entire team of lawyers with only a week to go until proceedings ensue. To replace them he has now hired two more lawyers to plead his case as he wants it plead. I have to wonder just how much preparation they will have ready when trial begins other than ''he dint do it'' . You know, just like you would do if YOU were his lawyer.

but you said:

it might be that neither of those events was done at the behest of a sitting president.

so are you full of crap, lying, or just what exactly?

You made the statement, back it up or walk it back.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: butcherguy


PS

I cleaned up 2 feet of snow this morning, then I drove to work on snowy roads. Not once did I see any evidence of ongoing violent insurrection.

It is rather difficult to imagine that there would be much if any signs of ongoing violent insurrection with two feet of snow on the ground and if forecasts are to be believed, more on the way.

Tell George Washington that.... or maybe you are a Hessian, they were surprised.
The Battle of Trenton
Then there was that whole Valley Forge thing with winter, snow, cold and what not.

a reply to: Hypntick

I have never been in favor of the presidential privilege.

a reply to: network dude
Dude, you seem so defensive. I say, ''may be'' . How is it that you seem to take even a neutral statement as adversarial.

It was stated that my ''guess'' was only that, a guess. A guess at what the House Democrats are thinking. You don't suppose do you that I somehow am privy to the points of prosecution to be presented by the prosecutors do you? Do you place that much power in my simple ''guesses'' that you have to demand proof at even mentioning a possibility?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Inciting a riot is a federal offense.

Being convicted as felon would prevent Trump from running for president again.


If there is actual evidence of inciting a riot, democrats need to stop the political theater, and kick this to a criminal court. Not a political court used to remove a president from office.

Can you do your fellow citizens a favor then? Please DEMAND.....EXPLICIT proof that Trump incited the violence he is accused of. Just like Biden's sons Hunter( family fiasco)... WE WANT PROOF, right? Not that Trump merely told people to assemble peacefully in protest to election abnormalities that he ( AND 1/2 the county ) believes was stolen by gross abnormalities( no case was ACCEPTED into court so we SAW NO PROOF). We were still able to see the proof they had on TV, youtube, press conferences- something the LEFT never got to watch). Please demand proof of him INCITING VIOLENCE. Not a BIASED NATRRATIVE that struggles to make connections to an accusation....NOT secret code...NOT innuendo.. We implore you make sure they show us some PROOF, THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT , called for insurrection against the incoming administration or the powers that be.. IM 100% positive WE will NOT see that. PRETEND YOU are on trial.( please take off the lenses of disgust for the man)..Would you accept whatever proof is given against your kin? We will soon see and if I see proof, I will be the first to call for his impeachment. I STILL BELIEVE the election was stolen. I'm not a white supremist, i've never read anything from Q, I didn't go to the capital, and I could care less if Donald Trump is in office or not. I believe their was much ridiculous chicanery, I want to see some OUTSIDE forensic analysis. Not a rescan of the votes . VOTER ROLL analysis, algorithm analysis( this is how they catch tax cheats BTW) and weed growers etc. Statistical anomalies never seen before in any election ever! Lets demand that.. I would want that for Joe Biden too. it's us that gets the shaft or not. We need honest and fair elections. We should have block chain voting with proof of legal registration... you cant exercise your 2nd amendment right without it either. No problems there? We should all want the same thing. We are brothes/sisters and this is OUR REPUBLIC.... if we can keep it!

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: butcherguy

I am no lawyer for the prosecution Mr. Guy, I don't have to show you anything other than my ''guess''. I'm not the one bringing charges. I will be watching this trial from the sidelines of my office space as I suppose you will be doing as well. I can, again, guess, that you will be rooting for acquittal of simple nullification of the impeachment.

So meanwhile, the prosecution is lining up it's ducks with expert witnesses on all things pertinent to the charges while the defendant, Donald Trump, has just let go his entire team of lawyers with only a week to go until proceedings ensue. To replace them he has now hired two more lawyers to plead his case as he wants it plead. I have to wonder just how much preparation they will have ready when trial begins other than ''he dint do it'' . You know, just like you would do if YOU were his lawyer.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
If he did not specifically incite them, he at least ''egged'' them on with his rhetoric.

No. He didn't. Except maybe for the morons...

Funny how nobody is mentioning the Clinton's ties to the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). I wonder what is in that report from the KGB archives that Clinton slapped a 75 year security moratorium on.

Then you have Obama's friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn who WERE members of the Weather Underground and SDS.

The Capital and other bombings were carried out by the Resistance Conspiracy. The Resistance Conspiracy contained members of the Weather Underground and the May 19th Communist organization.

Anybody seeing a pattern here?

a reply to: butcherguy

They tied Republicans to violent insurrection AND racism.

funny i don't read it this way, mainly because of two things.

first and foremost, Grant was a Republican. and the republicans were in power at the time.

second they plainly state that dems were trying to take back power.

from the op,

However, the echoes of that Reconstruction-era violence — led by both white marauders (cloaked as the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist groups) and white supremacist Democratic officials bent on reclaiming power from Republicans — were impossible to escape in Washington in early January when the rioters paraded Confederate flags through the halls of the Capitol and chanted threats to hang the vice president.

so it reads to me that they plainly state it was dem white supremacists.

and it's a well known fact that the dems, were in control of the south during reconstruction.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: network dude
Dude, you seem so defensive. I say, ''may be'' . How is it that you seem to take even a neutral statement as adversarial.

It was stated that my ''guess'' was only that, a guess. A guess at what the House Democrats are thinking. You don't suppose do you that I somehow am privy to the points of prosecution to be presented by the prosecutors do you? Do you place that much power in my simple ''guesses'' that you have to demand proof at even mentioning a possibility?

after 5 years of lies from the left to demonize Trump, some of us tend to get a bit pissed off as it continues. he says enough dumb things, you would think lefties would just stick to those, but being retarded and making sh!t up is just getting old. If you say something equally dumb, I'd say expect to be called out on it.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Oh I most certainly see the pattern, it's painfully obvious.

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: butcherguy

Gotta love that language

'Violent storms of white supremacists rocked swaths of the South, '

'rampaging white terrorists, using violence to launch themselves to power once more. '

And this

'Numbers are hazy, but dozens perished'

Hang on a sec here...

Well, the numbers seem hazy, they range a bit, but it seems at least 26 people were killed during the riots this year. I've seen higher numbers...in either case.

'Remember 2020 the year when violent black supremacists rocked swaths of America all were targets of the rampaging black terrorists using violence to try and launch themselves to power. Numbers are hazy but dozens were killed during the riots.'

Did you read the article? I think you didn't-- and you really should read things before you post them.
from that article..
David McAtee - shot by cops
Dorian Murrell - killed by a white dyde after a protest (not riot)
Marquis Tousant - found dead while cops investigating suspicious car in an alley (no riot or protest)

etc.

Now, reading your headline, one would think that all these happened at a riot (not protest) when in fact the majority of them happened near a protest or riot or on the same day.

Not at the riot.

You need to read your source and fact check it before trying it out as a talking point.

a reply to: neutronflux

It seems this way to me as well. However, the impeachment took place while he was in office and by law, I think, must be carried out by the Senate. I think they rushed in hopes of catching the immediate revulsion of fellow Republicans but missed the boat.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: butcherguy

They tied Republicans to violent insurrection AND racism.

funny i don't read it this way, mainly because of two things.

first and foremost, Grant was a Republican. and the republicans were in power at the time.

second they plainly state that dems were trying to take back power.

from the op,

However, the echoes of that Reconstruction-era violence — led by both white marauders (cloaked as the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist groups) and white supremacist Democratic officials bent on reclaiming power from Republicans — were impossible to escape in Washington in early January when the rioters paraded Confederate flags through the halls of the Capitol and chanted threats to hang the vice president.

so it reads to me that they plainly state it was dem white supremacists.

and it's a well known fact that the dems, were in control of the south during reconstruction.

Look at the title of the article that I linked in the OP.
It says Biden.
What does Biden have to do with with the post Civil War Reconstruction era?
Nothing.
Yet they tied it in there.