You show us the evidence and I show you informants... But even if there were a few bone heads... that has nothing to do with Trump.
Not that that's the point, because we all know what anyone wearing a MAGA hat is representing. But here's one with 45 on the side. Bonus points because it's with what appears to be his gross new side piece.
86K posts and you still don't understand your responsibilities. Sigh. I summarily reject your assertion. edit: it strikes me that "debunked" may be one of the many, many words you don't understand. "Debunked" means proving something isn't true. Imagine someone says there's a monster under your bed, but then you check and see there's nothing there. That means you just debunked the idea of the monster! It's when you show that something people believe or say is false.
Show us the proof that it was an organized insurrection and that Trump instigated it... Here are the facts. If they had evidence of Trump instigating that weaponless "insurrection" he would already be in jail...
Sigh. Moving the goalposts, huh? This is what you said was debunked: Now, to save face, show me who debunked this, how, and when.
You are late to the party, so I will indulge for a few points of fact. Do yourself a favor and do some deep research on your own... and stop parroting the dishonest News. Insurrection is such a bad word for a few clowns that decided to go into the Capital at the behest of informants egging them on... They were so organized that not one of them even had a weapon on their person. Be a supersleuth and prove Trump paid for it... and organize it.
You're dodging. I assume it is because you are unable to substantiate your claims that @DawgFanFromAlabam's assertion was debunked. just in case: "Substantiate" means to prove that something is true. Imagine you say you saw a rainbow, and then you show a picture of it. That picture helps substantiate your claim, or in other words, it shows proof that what you said really happened. It's like showing evidence to back up what you're saying!
How is it debunked? Show me. How would you describe someone who makes a claim but refuses to prove it or admit they can't?
I will play fact checker: 1: Yes rioters on Jan 6 called for Mike Pence to be brought out and hung, see video below. Jan. 6 committee shows video of protesters chanting 'Hang Mike Pence' (nbcnews.com) 2: There has been no link specifically between Trump and the planning of Jan 6. However, you can clearly see above in the video Trump while stopping just shy of actually supporting the rioters, didn't do much of anything to tell try to keep them at bay other than one tweet that was deleted (by twitter I believe). This and a few other things is why I could never support Trump being president even though if were being fair, a lot of his actual decisions were good and the economy was better with some respsects compared to Biden.
Mostly spot on, but there actually was evidence the Trump campaign coordinated with the planners or at least knew what was going on (Trump himself said “it’s going to be wild”). That’s pretty damning in my view. I’d say his words as the riot was going also show a damning state of mind: “this is what you get when an election is so unceremoniously stolen” or his words about Mike Pence “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what needed to be done” as well as his later actions in calling those criminals “political prisoners” as well as fundraising for them shows he did in fact support the rioters (and still does, at least rhetorically and for political purposes). As far as actually charging the particular crime of incitement to riot, the Trump defenders mostly seem to hang their hats on two points. 1) That some of the rioters left his speech early or planned their criminality in the days before Trumps speech, so they weren’t actually waiting for the speech to “incite” them. 2) Trump, as typical couched his inflammatory language “You need to fight like hell or you won’t have a country anymore” “ I’ll be marching with you” but also “peacefully and patriotically”.
