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.”
See, you’re illustrating my point for me here. I’m not resorting to insulting you as a deflection to avoid addressing your point. I’m directly addressing your claims while commenting on the fact that you’re struggling to understand what’s being said to you. Hope that helps.
I see the problem here: you think you’re the smartest person around. If you think you’re being incredibly clever then there’s no way anyone could see what you’re doing.
You’re not. You’re predictable as fuck, to the point that if you keep talking long enough you will always contradict yourself. This is because you don’t have a coherent or consistent argument, you just have being contrarian and the unearned belief that You Are Very Smart.
Literally described yourself there claiming that Trump has committed crimes then admitting that he hasn’t been convicted of anything. It’s always projection with you trolls.
As I said, predictably contradicting yourself.
So Trump hasn’t been convicted yet (currently on trial)= he didn’t do crimes.
All of the other politicians haven’t even been charged = they just haven’t been found out yet.
Yup. Totally consistent.
I love how you keep thinking there’s some gotcha in me saying that there are things other politicians can be investigated for the same way Trump is being investigated. The fact that you think this is a contradiction illustrates that your brain is as smooth as a bowling ball.
Once again, I addressed your point and I stated my opinion of your intellect. I’m not using any personal attacks to deflect from what you said. And since you’re still having trouble with what’s being explained to you in a myriad different ways, I’ll try again.
Either Trump is an aberration, and he’s being investigated because he’s uniquely guilty, or he’s representative of the US politicians in general and the investigation spotlight happened to fall on him in particular because of political reasons. If Trump gets in power he will simply direct the legal system to investigate other people the same way he’s being investigated. Evidently this concept is so hard for you to grasp the you spent three days struggling with it.
The fact that you think your previous post has any value speaks volumes of the low quality of the rest of your posts.
And we’re making progress! We’ve acknowledged at least the possibility that Trump is more guilty than everyone else! Nothing in your post dismisses this possibility but you seem to forget it exists in the very next sentence.
So let’s not get distracted here, try to focus just a little bit longer: if Trump is a “uniquely guilty aberration” that would mean…
a) the investigation into him was completely valid.
b) his investigation into other people would be invalid and just done for revenge. Or
c) all of the above?