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.”

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Once again, what part of innocent until proven guilty are you still struggling with there little buddy?

      Probably the discrepancy between what you are saying now, and when you said:

      I guarantee you that when Trump goes after his opponents, he’ll have no trouble finding dirt on them because all US politicians are corrupt as fuck.

      So which is it? Innocent until proven guilty or they’re all criminals?

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        There is no discrepancy here. You’re just either trolling or have really poor reading comprehension. I said that all the politicians in US, including Trump, are corrupt. Currently, Trump is being investigated, and it is very clearly a politically motivated. So, when Trump is in power he’ll start investigating his opponents the same way.

        However, legally, Trump hasn’t actually been convicted of anything. You’re the one trying to claim that Trump is somehow uniquely guilty as opposed to simply being investigated while others aren’t.

        Since you’re having so much trouble with this idea. I’ll try to provide a grade school illustration that might help you comprehend this incredibly sophisticated concept. Let’s say you have ten people who did illegal activities such as taking bribes, and you start investigating one of those people, does that mean that say anything about the other nine?

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Let’s say you have ten people who did illegal activities such as taking bribes, and you start investigating one of those people, does that mean that say anything about the other nine?

          what part of innocent until proven guilty are you still struggling with there little buddy?

          To clarify the difference for you one again:
          There are specific crimes being charged against Trump. Clear, falsifiable statements. If they are incorrect they can be proven wrong.

          Meanwhile, you have vague, unfalsifiable statements of “they must have done something. Because I say so.” If you are incorrect, it cannot be proven because you’ve made no actual claims.

          Your argument is so bad that not only isn’t it right, it’s not even wrong. It’s just nothing.