Late to the party but I’m glad I found this as it perfectly articulates something I’ve been saying since 2021. Yes its true that Trump didn’t make any explicit calls to violence, but his election denialism claims are ones that could only be rationally responded to with violence, hence making him implicitly responsible. In general your channel is easily one of the best. It has a way of articulating and explaining things that really makes me think and has changed my mind on some topics. If I’m being frank I dislike a non-negligible number of prominent talking-heads and wish people like you became more prominent as monoliths of left-wing messaging instead. Hopefully given the failure of 2024 people like you can rise to prominence.
Dude, I just have to say that I wish I had found this channel sooner. I've been binging your videos, and I really think you hit a whole lot of points right on the head in a way few other folks on this platform do nowadays. Case in point, the argument of this video, which I feel like I've been shouting my head off about whenever the topic comes up with my Republican buddies. Like, maybe we're getting lost in the weeds here with whether or not he directly and explicitly called for violence when we can very clearly prove that he routinely lied and played up dubious claims about the election, which was the whole reason the riot happened? I understand that LEGALLY, there was deniability, but I'm sick and tired of people playing dumb when its so painfully obvious that the whole capitol riot thing only went down because of the blatantly false claims he kept pedaling. It's a shame that he got away with it, and even more so that there are people that genuinely think Trump winning this most recent election somehow fits into the "rigged system" conspiracy they've been screeching about for the past 4 years. At any rate, it's just been cathartic seeing someone actually acknowledging this mess and making me feel a little less like I'm just going crazy haha 😅
There is evidence, but it was never heard in any court because every case was denied due to standing, latches, or. Other shenanigans. Ironically, letting the classes be heard wouldn't have diffused a lot of the Q-tardayion. See the Viva Frei Robert Barnes streams for a good breakdown of the relevant information.
I watched the whole stream. Didn't see anything new that I hadn't already heard before. Stuff about poll watchers, ballot dumps, statistical anomalies...but I didn't see any convincing hard evidence that any fraud has happened, just anecdotes, speculation, and more of the claims that, as soon as they get into court, are walked back or not demonstrated. If you have something specific to share I'd love to see it.
That's the problem, the evidence has not been allowed to be heard. It creates the strong impression that a cover-up is taking place. As for hard evidence, there have been more cases covered by Project Veritas, as well as actual convictions in Texas, New Jersey, etc. I would say if you haven't seen hard evidence, that you might look closer, because it's certainly there.
0:35 I mean if you're quoting a speech Day-Of and you have the speech say opposite, then clearly it doesn't meet the incitement standard. 2:33 It doesn't matter if Trump's claims are true, it's protected speech regardless. 4:05 Then it doesn't meet the requirement for incitement. 4:25 "Even if he wants peace, he can't contest the election." I mean the Democrats did the same thing in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. 4:30 "Which makes all the rioters feel justified" Well Democrats are literally funding "get out of jail free" programs so should we be able to impeach them? 4:50 "The only logical conclusion" ah yes, by him literally saying "peacefully protest, cheer on, we are about law and order and support the blue" that's totally the logical conclusion that happened at the capitol. 5:15 He didn't backpeddle, fraud has specific definitions and each case is filed under certain claims. Not every case is fraud, some are just legal challenges. 5:18 Well this is easy to explain: Courts are basically not touching the election cases and resulting on dismissal of standing, latches, or other junk like "equal victimhood." Then if they are they say "there is no evidence" when the case calls for auditing, which duh, that's what the case is explicitly for. There are cases proceeding at the moment, but at this point any election result will likely be denied anyway. Just to note: The democrats did the *exact* same thing in 2016. Well I say exact, they accused Russia instead. Quotes: "Trial by combat" is clearly Rudy Guliani talking about the courts. He's a lawyer, he's even talking about the cases presented in context in that speech. Donald Trump Jr. "We're coming for you" this is common rhetoric, even with the democrats they say the same thing. Neither of these are Trump. In summary: Not only are you wrong on a factual basis, but the fact that you didn't even reference the law when talking about incitement kind of speaks to how little you actually care about the legal process and how much your argument is based on an emotional reaction. Which hey, that's fine. But if you want to impeach Trump for incitement let's impeach all the Democrats who "incited" the BLM/Antifa riots of 2020. In fact, since impeachment doesn't have a "in office" limit now, let's impeach Hillary Clinton for Benghazi and Obama for war crimes. If we really just don't care about the law and our constitution just go crazy! Right?
I think you make some good points. First thing I'd like to cover is that, it doesn't have to meet the LEGAL definition of incitement, which I don't think it does btw. So long as the senate determines it to be worth impeaching over (they didn't he was acquitted as I'm typing this) they can convict. Regarding the quotes, they of course have plausible deniability, but I think a fair amount of supporters interpreted those as calls to action. Why do you think there was violence at the capital? Assuming my argument about it being the last viable option is wrong, what other reason would they do what they did? Do you think it's completely independent from the Stop the Steal narrative? For the dem thing, I think it would comparable had they also 1. Not conceded, 2. Rejected the results of the Muller investigation. And if they had done both those things and pushed americans to revolt, I think a similar impeachment would be appropriate. In terms of the voter fraud, would you mind linking me some of the most compelling evidence? I'd love to take a look, but I haven't seen anything incredibly convincing to this point.
@@thesoypill1583 Yes, it does have to meet the legal definition of incitement if that is the case they brought in the articles of impeachment: "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" Quotes: Plausible deniability? Really? You're going to go with "they were skirting the line" as some pseudo argument lol. None of these are direct calls to specific action. The democrats have made the *exact* same statements or worse. This is still protected speech regardless. Giuliani who again, is literally talking about his legal case, is a lawyer, and has been hired as a lawyer. The fact that you had to take that out of context is EXACTLY the reason I pointed it out, because you know damn well that you had to leave out context in order for your point to be made. This is the "coolsville sucks" method. Where you selectively quote people mid sentence. "Why do you think there was violence at the capital?" Because people were dissatisfied. Why were there 100+ riots last year? I mean do you want to really play the blame game? I'd take one Trump for the 50+ democrat leaders who supported BLM/Antifa riots. "For the dem thing, I think it would comparable had they also 1. Not conceded, 2. Rejected the results of the Muller investigation." 1. they didn't concede, they challenged the election results. 2. Trump left office, so he conceded. 3. You really think that the democrats didn't reject that? They promoted Russia gate for another 2 years, tried impeachment off of a forged report. Even up until the 2020 election were saying Trump stole the 2016 election. "And if they had done both those things and pushed americans to revolt, I think a similar impeachment would be appropriate." They literally did those exact things. Word. For. Word. they echoe'd Trump before he even made those statements. Except you know what, they didn't say "peacefully protest" they encouraged violence. They funded programs to allow rioters to get out of jail. They set up entire systems and bankrolled riots through Antifa/BLM. "In terms of the voter fraud, would you mind linking me some of the most compelling evidence? I'd love to take a look, but I haven't seen anything incredibly convincing to this point." There were so many non-court hearings about the stuff so I find it completely dishonest to say you actually attempted to look it up. Cybersecurity professionals testifying, affidavits, footage, the whole lot. 2020 had 100+ riots from BLM/Antifa. 2021 had 1 riot at the capitol from Trump Supporters. You lose your mind over that. Just think about how it looks to people like me who witness firsthand these riots and how I hear on the news they are "peaceful protest" and that when government has one riot. Just one, that they make sob stories and "think of the children" emotional arguments. Also capitol police didn't accept national guard help. So yeah, don't look into that. Orange man bad, there is no antifa/BLM riots in ba sing se, there is no forging of evidence at an impeachment hearing in ba sing se. Don't look into it. Keep in your bubble.
2024 and the Right (and almost 50% of the country apparently) has amnesia of this histoic event.
I forgot I made this video
Poor fact gator, please bring him back...
fuck the fact gator
Where is the Fact Gators’s GoFundMe?
All proceeds from the video go to reconstructive surgery for his head.
the fact gator is fucking stupid im glad they took it out of these videos
Rewatching these videos, PLEASE bring the fact gator back!!
I don't think I'd ever read this
I like the blurb at the end "why is AOC so hot, if I hate her so much?"
Late to the party but I’m glad I found this as it perfectly articulates something I’ve been saying since 2021. Yes its true that Trump didn’t make any explicit calls to violence, but his election denialism claims are ones that could only be rationally responded to with violence, hence making him implicitly responsible.
In general your channel is easily one of the best. It has a way of articulating and explaining things that really makes me think and has changed my mind on some topics. If I’m being frank I dislike a non-negligible number of prominent talking-heads and wish people like you became more prominent as monoliths of left-wing messaging instead. Hopefully given the failure of 2024 people like you can rise to prominence.
Thanks for checking out the backlog!
Dude, I just have to say that I wish I had found this channel sooner. I've been binging your videos, and I really think you hit a whole lot of points right on the head in a way few other folks on this platform do nowadays.
Case in point, the argument of this video, which I feel like I've been shouting my head off about whenever the topic comes up with my Republican buddies. Like, maybe we're getting lost in the weeds here with whether or not he directly and explicitly called for violence when we can very clearly prove that he routinely lied and played up dubious claims about the election, which was the whole reason the riot happened?
I understand that LEGALLY, there was deniability, but I'm sick and tired of people playing dumb when its so painfully obvious that the whole capitol riot thing only went down because of the blatantly false claims he kept pedaling. It's a shame that he got away with it, and even more so that there are people that genuinely think Trump winning this most recent election somehow fits into the "rigged system" conspiracy they've been screeching about for the past 4 years.
At any rate, it's just been cathartic seeing someone actually acknowledging this mess and making me feel a little less like I'm just going crazy haha 😅
Thanks for checking me out! I'm glad I could voice your frustrations cause God knows they've been mine for a while!
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Pwetty pwease stowp counting UwU :3
How do you know my wand witing??? >~
Not a bad video. Should get more attention.
Thanks! I'm doing my best to spread it. It's a big youtubers world out there.
i didnt hear anything about your wife’s bf...is he okay?
My wife's bf and I are in marriage counseling. Thanks for asking.
There is evidence, but it was never heard in any court because every case was denied due to standing, latches, or. Other shenanigans. Ironically, letting the classes be heard wouldn't have diffused a lot of the Q-tardayion. See the Viva Frei Robert Barnes streams for a good breakdown of the relevant information.
I watched the whole stream. Didn't see anything new that I hadn't already heard before. Stuff about poll watchers, ballot dumps, statistical anomalies...but I didn't see any convincing hard evidence that any fraud has happened, just anecdotes, speculation, and more of the claims that, as soon as they get into court, are walked back or not demonstrated. If you have something specific to share I'd love to see it.
That's the problem, the evidence has not been allowed to be heard. It creates the strong impression that a cover-up is taking place. As for hard evidence, there have been more cases covered by Project Veritas, as well as actual convictions in Texas, New Jersey, etc. I would say if you haven't seen hard evidence, that you might look closer, because it's certainly there.
0:35 I mean if you're quoting a speech Day-Of and you have the speech say opposite, then clearly it doesn't meet the incitement standard.
2:33 It doesn't matter if Trump's claims are true, it's protected speech regardless.
4:05 Then it doesn't meet the requirement for incitement.
4:25 "Even if he wants peace, he can't contest the election." I mean the Democrats did the same thing in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020.
4:30 "Which makes all the rioters feel justified" Well Democrats are literally funding "get out of jail free" programs so should we be able to impeach them?
4:50 "The only logical conclusion" ah yes, by him literally saying "peacefully protest, cheer on, we are about law and order and support the blue" that's totally the logical conclusion that happened at the capitol.
5:15 He didn't backpeddle, fraud has specific definitions and each case is filed under certain claims. Not every case is fraud, some are just legal challenges.
5:18 Well this is easy to explain:
Courts are basically not touching the election cases and resulting on dismissal of standing, latches, or other junk like "equal victimhood."
Then if they are they say "there is no evidence" when the case calls for auditing, which duh, that's what the case is explicitly for.
There are cases proceeding at the moment, but at this point any election result will likely be denied anyway.
Just to note: The democrats did the *exact* same thing in 2016. Well I say exact, they accused Russia instead.
Quotes:
"Trial by combat" is clearly Rudy Guliani talking about the courts. He's a lawyer, he's even talking about the cases presented in context in that speech.
Donald Trump Jr. "We're coming for you" this is common rhetoric, even with the democrats they say the same thing.
Neither of these are Trump.
In summary: Not only are you wrong on a factual basis, but the fact that you didn't even reference the law when talking about incitement kind of speaks to how little you actually care about the legal process and how much your argument is based on an emotional reaction.
Which hey, that's fine. But if you want to impeach Trump for incitement let's impeach all the Democrats who "incited" the BLM/Antifa riots of 2020.
In fact, since impeachment doesn't have a "in office" limit now, let's impeach Hillary Clinton for Benghazi and Obama for war crimes.
If we really just don't care about the law and our constitution just go crazy! Right?
I think you make some good points.
First thing I'd like to cover is that, it doesn't have to meet the LEGAL definition of incitement, which I don't think it does btw.
So long as the senate determines it to be worth impeaching over (they didn't he was acquitted as I'm typing this) they can convict.
Regarding the quotes, they of course have plausible deniability, but I think a fair amount of supporters interpreted those as calls to action.
Why do you think there was violence at the capital? Assuming my argument about it being the last viable option is wrong, what other reason would they do what they did? Do you think it's completely independent from the Stop the Steal narrative?
For the dem thing, I think it would comparable had they also 1. Not conceded, 2. Rejected the results of the Muller investigation. And if they had done both those things and pushed americans to revolt, I think a similar impeachment would be appropriate.
In terms of the voter fraud, would you mind linking me some of the most compelling evidence? I'd love to take a look, but I haven't seen anything incredibly convincing to this point.
@@thesoypill1583
Yes, it does have to meet the legal definition of incitement if that is the case they brought in the articles of impeachment:
"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"
Quotes: Plausible deniability? Really? You're going to go with "they were skirting the line" as some pseudo argument lol.
None of these are direct calls to specific action.
The democrats have made the *exact* same statements or worse. This is still protected speech regardless.
Giuliani who again, is literally talking about his legal case, is a lawyer, and has been hired as a lawyer.
The fact that you had to take that out of context is EXACTLY the reason I pointed it out, because you know damn well that you had to leave out context in order for your point to be made.
This is the "coolsville sucks" method. Where you selectively quote people mid sentence.
"Why do you think there was violence at the capital?"
Because people were dissatisfied.
Why were there 100+ riots last year?
I mean do you want to really play the blame game? I'd take one Trump for the 50+ democrat leaders who supported BLM/Antifa riots.
"For the dem thing, I think it would comparable had they also 1. Not conceded, 2. Rejected the results of the Muller investigation."
1. they didn't concede, they challenged the election results.
2. Trump left office, so he conceded.
3. You really think that the democrats didn't reject that? They promoted Russia gate for another 2 years, tried impeachment off of a forged report. Even up until the 2020 election were saying Trump stole the 2016 election.
"And if they had done both those things and pushed americans to revolt, I think a similar impeachment would be appropriate."
They literally did those exact things.
Word. For. Word. they echoe'd Trump before he even made those statements.
Except you know what, they didn't say "peacefully protest" they encouraged violence. They funded programs to allow rioters to get out of jail. They set up entire systems and bankrolled riots through Antifa/BLM.
"In terms of the voter fraud, would you mind linking me some of the most compelling evidence? I'd love to take a look, but I haven't seen anything incredibly convincing to this point."
There were so many non-court hearings about the stuff so I find it completely dishonest to say you actually attempted to look it up.
Cybersecurity professionals testifying, affidavits, footage, the whole lot.
2020 had 100+ riots from BLM/Antifa.
2021 had 1 riot at the capitol from Trump Supporters.
You lose your mind over that. Just think about how it looks to people like me who witness firsthand these riots and how I hear on the news they are "peaceful protest" and that when government has one riot. Just one, that they make sob stories and "think of the children" emotional arguments.
Also capitol police didn't accept national guard help. So yeah, don't look into that.
Orange man bad, there is no antifa/BLM riots in ba sing se, there is no forging of evidence at an impeachment hearing in ba sing se.
Don't look into it. Keep in your bubble.
Two years later, still no evidence, and we're going into the next election cycle.@@ShouVertica
1914
27
158
Fake news.