We are puzzled. All the Talking Heads keep harping on the need to prove Trump’s intent when assessing his guilt on the Jan 6 riot. WHY? If I sent a mob to reclaim the US Capitol from invading Russian forces–that would be a proper basis for my action. But if I sent that same same mob to the US Capitol to interfere with the counting of electoral votes in a fair and honest election–that would be illegal. Is there any room for the need to prove “intent” when the evidence is clear and irrefutable? Trump sent the crowd; he knew they were armed; he encouraged the hanging of Mike Pence–his VP-by not stopping the riot for 187 minutes. What difference does it make as to his intent? Intent is obvious in this case. But even if it wasn’t obvious he still sent the armed mob to stop the electoral vote count. Case closed. It might be argued that he didn’t expect that much damage or that he didn’t think it would go on for so long a time. But he still sent the mob to do what he wanted done. Again, case closed. Try him and either convict on all charges or some degree of those charges–either way he will be eliminated from the 2024 ballot.
Comments are closed