BREAKING: JUDGE Says Trump WASN'T RESPONSIBLE For Capitol Riot In New Decision
(www.thedailyfodder.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (51)
sorted by:
The headline here is completely inaccurate, no doubt because the folks who run the site believe they can get links and clicks from Trump supporters if they make up something that sounds like good news for Trump.
What the Judge actually says is that a defendant can’t escape punishment for crimes he committed by pleading “Trump told me to do it,” because that’s not an excuse even if it’s true. She then uses the analogy of Trump ordering someone to commit a murder—a situation where, obviously, both people would be guilty.
I know folks are starved for a little positive news, but automatically trusting a pro-Trump headline is not really any better than automatically trusting the MSM. There isn’t even any original reporting or research here: They took a bunch of information from an MSM newspaper article, and then slapped a bogus headline on it for clicks.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/23/capitol-rioters-judge-proud-boys-trump-471199
Well, the president can order members of the military to do things as CIC, not random civillians.
Anyway, yes: The person who carries out the order, if its obviously wrong, is responsible for their actions, which was the judge’s point. But that doesn’t mean the person who gave the order can’t also be guilty, assuming they intended for the person to really do it and believed that they would (as opposed to a joke about “go rob a bank” that someone bizarrely acted on). It doesn’t necessarily depend on having formal authority to order someone (mob bosses who order hits have no LEGAL authority to do so) but on whether the person intended & expected their directions to be acted on.
This isn’t some totally new situation; courts handle cases all the time where one person actually commits the crime, but did so at the direction of another, whether it’s Tony Soprano asking Paulie to “take care of a witness” or a spouse who encourages her lover to get rid of her husband. Paulie is guilty, but Tony can be charged too, though the prosecution has to convince the jury that when Tony said “take care of” he really did mean “kill” and not “give him a foot massage.” Guilt isn’t like a pie that gets divided up, so that if Paulie is fully responsible for his actions, there’s no guilt left over for Tony.
You kinda just made a play on words. just because the headline is sensational doesnt mean it isnt based in fact which is that trump didnt incite violence. Its nit like the judge ruled on it. They just made comments which support that fact that he didnt incite the riot
But the judge DIDN’T make comments suggesting Trump didn’t incite the riot. The judge said it doesn’t matter (to the case) if Trump incited the riot, because if you rioted you’re still responsible for your actions. I promise, if you run through the quotations, you will not find a single sentence where the (Obama appointed) judge denies Trump incited violence.
Hope people read this after posting their initial reactions.