Where is McCarthy when we need him?Apples. I am talking the deprogramming that took place after the war. Put the Orange menace in jail, break all those anti democracy media institutions in half, and root out corrupt congress, reestablish the sc, outlaw the oathkeepers and proudboys.
No bloodshed needed.. But a firm hand indeed. These fuckers are going for the mafia state 100% and you only have to lose once…
I don't think the claim was a crime, but it was unsubstantiated.
Uhmmm, what's happening in the US today has more than a passing resemblance with what happened in Germany in the 1920's.So what's the point here? That there is some higher law that has to be followed? Or that public opinion should be the standard for evidence? As long as "everyone knows" that's good enough to convict?
Or are you suggesting that not following the heard will get me ostracized? Does it seem to you that I've ever considered my position in the tribe before expressing an opinion?
Btw. Give up the Nazi thing. Nazis drank beer, they had music, they did all the things humans did. That's not what made them monsters.
My point exactly. Decisions based on hearsay and incomplete information. Belief instead of fact.And when these unsubstantiated claims lead to mobs storming the capitol and probably worse in the future? All with zero proof, just some chest pounding that it happened.
The point is, you accept the concept of people acting in bad faith as long as it's legal, hence, nobody taking you seriously.So what's the point here? That there is some higher law that has to be followed? Or that public opinion should be the standard for evidence? As long as "everyone knows" that's good enough to convict?
Or are you suggesting that not following the heard will get me ostracized? Does it seem to you that I've ever considered my position in the tribe before expressing an opinion?
Btw. Give up the Nazi thing. Nazis drank beer, they had music, they did all the things humans did. That's not what made them monsters.
Then lets take that overwhelming evidence into a court of law and convict the perpetrators of their crimes. I'm all for it.Uhmmm, what's happening in the US today has more than a passing resemblance with what happened in Germany in the 1920's.
There is now overwhelming evidence of a concerted effort to keep Trump in power despite losing the election, which is for all intents and purposes a coup. Yes they failed, but they have given no indication they will not try again and are actively purging elements of the Republican Party that refused to go along.
This should be a giant blinking alarm to anyone concerned with the continuation of constitutional governance in the US, regardless of party.
1) Nobody is stopping them from telling their side of the story, they are choosing not to and fighting attempts to compel them to tell their side at every turn.Then lets take that overwhelming evidence into a court of law and convict the perpetrators of their crimes. I'm all for it.
My entire point is that those perpetrators get to share their side of the story. They get to describe the events and reasons that lead to their actions. They won't be tried and convicted based on what's said by reporters.
I'm baffled as to why anyone would question the idea of hearing the entire story.
That's completely incorrect. You're conflating integrity with law, two different things. What we're discussing here is law, the ramifications of presenting documents that may be fraudulent. The question from a legal prospective is binary, laws were or weren't broken. The story as presented describes serious crimes, with the assumption of guilt. My point is that we've only heard the prosecution, we haven't heard a single word in defense. My position is that I want to hear the entire story before deciding guilt. While that may seem unreasonable to you, it seems perfectly logical to me.The point is, you accept the concept of people acting in bad faith as long as it's legal, hence, nobody taking you seriously.
You've heard plenty of words from the defense, but they are all versions of "I refuse to answer the questions."That's completely incorrect. You're conflating integrity with law, two different things. What we're discussing here is law, the ramifications of presenting documents that may be fraudulent. The question from a legal prospective is binary, laws were or weren't broken. The story as presented describes serious crimes, with the assumption of guilt. My point is that we've only heard the prosecution, we haven't heard a single word in defense. My position is that I want to hear the entire story before deciding guilt. While that may seem unreasonable to you, it seems perfectly logical to me.
As @fskimospy alluded to, what if the Bad Thing isn't covered by existing law? Does that make it all kosher, we should just shut the fuck up and sit in the corner and color? Or should we still voice our issue with it regardless?That's completely incorrect. You're conflating integrity with law, two different things. What we're discussing here is law, the ramifications of presenting documents that may be fraudulent. The question from a legal prospective is binary, laws were or weren't broken. The story as presented describes serious crimes, with the assumption of guilt. My point is that we've only heard the prosecution, we haven't heard a single word in defense. My position is that I want to hear the entire story before deciding guilt. While that may seem unreasonable to you, it seems perfectly logical to me.
If the story as presented is correct and complete, the crimes would be sedition, fraud, conspiracy, possibly forgery. I'm sure there would be others.1) Nobody is stopping them from telling their side of the story, they are choosing not to and fighting attempts to compel them to tell their side at every turn.
2) There's a decent chance we don't have any criminal laws that cover a losing president attempting a coup in this manner. If Pence had rejected the electors from those 'contested' states there's no crime committed there, just him interpreting the constitution. The end result is the overthrow of democracy in the United States anyway. See the problem? And if you say 'oh well then they should write a law to make that criminal' there's no way you're going to be able to do that and not also criminalize legitimate interpretations of constitutional duties.
Our laws are not prepared for a chief executive attempting a coup in this manner and there's no indication they ever will be. So, what do you do? I'm sure the answer is not 'let them keep trying more coups until they succeed', so what is it? To me the 14th amendment might be a good solution - permanently bar everyone involved from public office for life. As we talked about it wouldn't require a criminal conviction as that would be unconstitutional.
Btw, lest you think we don't pay attention, there's been plenty of times where you've cast judgement on protesters for being 'rioters', 'burning, looting', etc, long before any attempt to defend themselves was even possible.That's completely incorrect. You're conflating integrity with law, two different things. What we're discussing here is law, the ramifications of presenting documents that may be fraudulent. The question from a legal prospective is binary, laws were or weren't broken. The story as presented describes serious crimes, with the assumption of guilt. My point is that we've only heard the prosecution, we haven't heard a single word in defense. My position is that I want to hear the entire story before deciding guilt. While that may seem unreasonable to you, it seems perfectly logical to me.
Why do some of you keep referring to the event where this took place a demonstration, rally, or protest? It was a riot. Millions of dollars worth of damage, business burned to the ground, shootings, looting, arson, assault. Those things make it a riot.
Nope. BLM riots are stupid people doing stupid things. Trump riots are speculation based on nothing. Should they happen, those will be stupid people as well.
How will we be able to tell the difference between the riots, vandalism, and looting we have now from the riots, vandalism, and looting we'll have then? Do you think there will be overlap? What if some of the criminals decide to pull a double shift and work both sides? How will we know which rioters are working for the side we approve of? Perhaps we should issue uniforms?
Sedition, conspiracy, fraud, and forgery are the crimes I can think of right off the top of my head.As @fskimospy alluded to, what if the Bad Thing isn't covered by existing law? Does that make it all kosher, we should just shut the fuck up and sit in the corner and color? Or should we still voice our issue with it regardless?
I agree that for some of the fake electors there's probably a charge of forging a government document. As far as the rest goes, probably not.If the story as presented is correct and complete, the crimes would be sedition, fraud, conspiracy, possibly forgery. I'm sure there would be others.
I'm not talking about anything but the "fake" electors. Not Pence, not Trump, not the riot, just the electors that claimed Trump won. Did they commit crimes or was there some circumstance that justifies their actions? I don't know the answer to that question, and I'd like to see it answered in court.
Protesting and rioting are two different things. One is legal and often justified, the other is illegal and a criminal act. Protesters running out of stores with tv's are looters.Btw, lest you think we don't pay attention, there's been plenty of times where you've cast judgement on protesters for being 'rioters', 'burning, looting', etc, long before any attempt to defend themselves was even possible.
And a very important issue because who will look out for the poor insurance companies if not for Greenman? Much higher priority issue compared to something silly like the end of democracy.... Protesters running out of stores with tv's are looters.
And forging documents is a crime too, but you'll call a rioter a rioter without hearing a defense, but not call a forgery a forgery without hearing a defense. See the hypocrisy there?Protesting and rioting are two different things. One is legal and often justified, the other is illegal and a criminal act. Protesters running out of stores with tv's are looters.
Can you imagine a situation where there is coup without a conspiracy? There has to be some organization, there has to be some way to direct who does what. Perhaps the electors were a part of that. Lets arrest them, charge them with conspiracy and sedition, and see where it leads. There is no doubt that a few of them would drop a dime on his partners to avoid going to jail.I agree that for some of the fake electors there's probably a charge of forging a government document. As far as the rest goes, probably not.
The issue here is they seem part and parcel of a much larger scheme and of all of it, among the least important parts! The last president literally attempted a coup!
I watched the rioter commit the crime, I didn't see the elector forge a document, I don't even know if it was forgery.And forging documents is a crime too, but you'll call a rioter a rioter without hearing a defense, but not call a forgery a forgery without hearing a defense. See the hypocrisy there?
Can you imagine a situation where there is coup without a conspiracy? There has to be some organization, there has to be some way to direct who does what. Perhaps the electors were a part of that. Lets arrest them, charge them with conspiracy and sedition, and see where it leads. There is no doubt that a few of them would drop a dime on his partners to avoid going to jail.
I watched the rioter commit the crime, I didn't see the elector forge a document, I don't even know if it was forgery.
If you walk up to me and piss on my leg, I'll know that you pissed on my leg. If you sneak into my house and piss on my trousers I won't know that you did it.
This is why some people are referred to as an "eye witness". The crime is verified by the people that watched it happen.
So who told the electors to file false documents? Who set up the meetings for them, and why? There are simply to many moving parts for there not to be a conspiracy.Yes, I think Trump's attempted coup is an example of a coup potentially without a criminal conspiracy. Conspiracy has to be one or more people working together to commit some other crime, but as I said the president attempting to essentially nullify the results of an election through a novel constitutional interpretation isn't a crime because we have no laws that cover it.
If Pence says 'I have such sincere doubts over the validity of these electors that I cannot in good faith as presiding officer count them, therefore I will decline.' are you going to prosecute him for that? Under what law? Then the election goes to the House, which gavels Trump in for another term. The loser of the election has now kept power, and democracy in the US has ended.
So what's the answer here? As I said, it can't be 'just let them keep attempting coups' so what's the plan?
This is wishful thinking. If you think you’re going to get someone to testify that Trump told anyone to go forge election documents you are dreaming.So who told the electors to file false documents? Who set up the meetings for them, and why? There are simply to many moving parts for there not to be a conspiracy.
From what I've read so far, it appears Giuliani and other Trump campaign officials were directly involved in coordinating the effort along with key state GOP officials. although with no direct link (so far) back to their mob boss. Their only public defense I've seen is trying to claim that these "alternative" elector slates were only for if the state election results were somehow overturned - for which there is a precedent.So who told the electors to file false documents? Who set up the meetings for them, and why? There are simply to many moving parts for there not to be a conspiracy.