Because Trump 2.0

[Stuart Galbraith]

The police ripped the woman off the centotaph, and I hope arrested her.

As for whether its illegal, you can see what happened when those folks ripped down the statue of Edward Colston, and threw it in Bristol harbour. Thats basic criminal damage. Priti Patel threw the book at them. Unfortunately for her, the Jury was made up of locals whom were more aware of the context, and they were all found not guilty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Edward_Colston

Me? I dont condone criminal damage under any circumstances. I will say the people of Bristol had been trying to get the damn thing removed for decades, and were ignored. In the end they got tired waiting.

[R011]

3 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

Under another Trump presidency, these aides and interns warn, "democratic movements will be irreparably jeopardized as Trump and his acolyte JD Vance kowtow to dictators like Vladimir Putin while turning their backs on our allies." 

 

As someone on NavWeaps said, they're concerned about Trump's danger to democracy, yet somehow, Trump didn't destroy democracy lat time he had the chance.

[Skywalkre]

3 minutes ago, R011 said:

As someone on NavWeaps said, they're concerned about Trump's danger to democracy, yet somehow, Trump didn't destroy democracy lat time he had the chance.

Being bad at trying to overturn an election doesn't mean you didn't try to overturn that election...

[R011]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Whether it was a riot or an insurrection was purely dependent upon where they were standing. If they were outside, it was a riot. If they were inside, carrying a rope and muttering about lynching Mike Pence, it was clearly an insurrection. The only question left is whether it was one that was directed, or one generated by individuals completely out of all control.

The people outside, the vast majority of the crowd, were protesting peacefully, not rioting.  They were setting things on fire, attacking bystanders or police, or vandalizing property and were legally permitted to be there protesting.

The people who went inside due to the unexpected deficiency of security were not nearly organized enough for this to be any kind of coup or insurrection and riot describes their actions quite well.

[R011]

3 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Being bad at trying to overturn an election doesn't mean you didn't try to overturn that election...

Exercising legal options to protest the results of an election are a manifestation of democracy.

And where was the attack on democracy in the previous four years of his administration?

Edited August 28 by R011

[Skywalkre]

Just now, R011 said:

Exercising legal options to protest the results of an election are a manifestation of democracy.

And you're ignoring the illegal attempts as highlighted in multiple indictments... why?

[sunday]

26 minutes ago, R011 said:

As someone on NavWeaps said, they're concerned about Trump's danger to democracy, yet somehow, Trump didn't destroy democracy lat time he had the chance.

Or, he did let others to destroy it. Thus his landslide reelection was stolen.

So perhaps it is a case of "He is a danger to democracy! He did not thwart us when we destroyed it!"

Edited August 28 by sunday

[R011]

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

And you're ignoring the illegal attempts as highlighted in multiple indictments... why?

Partisan hit jobs for the most part with a few due to over enthusiastic supporters. As for actual threats to democracy, we had your presidential candidate supporting years of criminal riot and the Biden- Harris Administration censoring social media - something admitted recently by Zuckerberg.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

The people outside, the vast majority of the crowd, were protesting peacefully, not rioting.  They were setting things on fire, attacking bystanders or police, or vandalizing property and were legally permitted to be there protesting.

The people who went inside due to the unexpected deficiency of security were not nearly organized enough for this to be any kind of coup or insurrection and riot describes their actions quite well.

No argument. I was referring to the ones outside breaking windows and beating the police with flagpoles, and spraying them with Bear mace, whom clearly were not.

I didn't say it was a well planned insurrection. But some of them clearly had intent to lynch pence, and stop the peaceful exchange of power. Just because it was a shambles (looking at you Qanon Shaman) and didn't stand a cat in hells chance of succeeding, doesn't mean that wasn't the aim.

 

[Skywalkre]

10 minutes ago, R011 said:

Partisan hit jobs for the most part with a few due to over enthusiastic supporters.

Partisan hit jobs that convinced multiple grand juries at the state and Fed levels?  Right... I take it you came to this conclusion from looking at the indictments and various testaments yourself or, like most here on TN, from listening to your totally non-partisan news outlets.  🙄

[R011]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No argument. I was referring to the ones outside breaking windows and beating the police with flagpoles, and spraying them with Bear mace, whom clearly were not.

I didn't say it was a well planned insurrection. But some of them clearly had intent to lynch pence, and stop the peaceful exchange of power. Just because it was a shambles (looking at you Qanon Shaman) and didn't stand a cat in hells chance of succeeding, doesn't mean that wasn't the aim.

 

If that's the case therewere several so called insurrections of a half dozen or so people each.  At that point, dignifying it with the name is absurd.  Hardly Guy Faulkes level.

[R011]

2 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Partisan hit jobs that convinced multiple grand juries at the state and Fed levels?  Right... I take it you came to this conclusion from looking at the indictments and various testaments yourself or, like most here on TN, from listening to your totally non-partisan news outlets.  🙄

A grand jury will indite a ham sandwich.

I made my own conclusions from open,mostly MSM sources like AP.  I don't follow partisan activist media save that.

[R011]

And no commy, I see, on the more serious and real threats to do from Biden- Harris.

[Skywalkre]

3 minutes ago, R011 said:

And no commy, I see, on the more serious and real threats to do from Biden- Harris.

Because they weren't.  You stated they actively censured... whereas Zukerberg's letter simply says they were pressured.  All the details I've found so far point to Biden officials communicating and expressing frustration.  That doesn't make it right... but how do you look at that and say that's more serious than a sitting POTUS who takes multiple steps to overturn an election he lost?  That's some remarkable mental gymnastics to blow off Trump's actions while damning Biden's.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

Being bad at trying to overturn an election doesn't mean you didn't try to overturn that election...

Being bad at border control doesn't mean you didn't try to open borders. 

Being bad at censorship doesn't mean you didn't try to effect censorship. 

Being bad at surveillance without warrants doesn't mean you didn't try to violate numerous federal laws on the matter. 

I'll note as I did before, the various nuances of what is allowable under election counts is a LOT less defined than things like warrantless surveillance or censorship. ie there's piles of caselaw on 1st amendment. How many cases are there on nuances or variances on election counts by the VP? 

Hell, you're fine with prosecutions absent legal authority and just consider that reasonable gray area for action despite clear requirements in the past for statute to specifically allow the special prosecution appointment. Seems like the GOP needs to start arresting Democrats for this as a clear violation of Section 1983 law violations. 
 

Edited August 28 by rmgill

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

And you're ignoring the illegal attempts as highlighted in multiple indictments... why?

And you're ignoring the illegal acts under effecting those indictments why? Take the Georgia case. It's it routine to hire your lover to prosecute someone under a political case? Is it routine to get jury instructions that allow  partial guilty convictions to sum up to all the guilty convictions? Is it routine to deny in such proceedings expert witnesses in the subject at hand while allowing prurient testimony from a porn star? 


 

Edited August 28 by rmgill

[rmgill]

5 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Because they weren't.  You stated they actively censured... whereas Zukerberg's letter simply says they were pressured. 

Weasel words. 

If the state pressures you to break into someone's home then they've suborned actions that are illegal. PERIOD. Their pressure is as much a form of force and you know it. 

This is, quite clearly conspiracy to deprive Citizens of Civil rights. That's a felony. Party A pressures Party B to do something for Party A and TO Party C (citizens). 
 

Quote

 

42 U.S. Code § 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

(3)Depriving persons of rights or privileges

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

conspiracy

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy

Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal.  Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement.  An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. See Whitfield v. United States, 453 U.S. 209 (2005). The illegal act is the conspiracy's "target offense.”

Conspiracy generally carries a penalty on its own.  In addition, conspiracies allow for derivative liability where conspirators can also be punished for the illegal acts carried out by other members, even if they were not directly involved.  Thus, where one or more members of the conspiracy committed illegal acts to further the conspiracy's goals, all members of the conspiracy may be held accountable for those acts.  

Where no one has actually committed a criminal act, the punishment varies.  Some conspiracy statutes assign the same punishment for conspiracy as for the target offense.  Others impose lesser penalties.

Conspiracy applies to both civil and criminal offenses. For example, you may conspire to commit murder, or conspire to commit fraud.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

All the details I've found so far point to Biden officials communicating and expressing frustration. 

You've still not looked at the Twitter files have you? 

The FBI and other agencies established a process to flag posts, users and stories for censorship. They had media orgs squash stories. That Jeff Zucker hasn't come out and stated is clear. However, again in that case we DO have Brother Cuomo doing things for Governor Cuomo, all at the behest of/awareness of Zucker. It's not a stretch think that, like with the Biden Laptop story, that the FBI and other agencies didn't get news orgs to squash stories, because they DID get the story squashed by Facebook/Twitter and got all the other agencies to not talk about it. 

That is censorship. 

 

5 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

That doesn't make it right... but how do you look at that and say that's more serious than a sitting POTUS who takes multiple steps to overturn an election he lost?  That's some remarkable mental gymnastics to blow off Trump's actions while damning Biden's.

You're doing enough mental gymnastics on all of this to qualify for a center stage spot in the next Cirque du Solei. 

cf : Censorship of stories, Censorship of citizens, investigations based on paid for 'evidence', surveillance on same, warrants and searches on same, legal cases and charges based on false or contrived charges, legal charges brought by people with no legal authority to do so, legal charges adjudicated in violation of due process and other civil rights, suppression of stories negative to the other candidate, riots from the start of Trump's presidency, and an assassination attempt that by many accounts now looks like a put up job. 

[R011]

17 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Because they weren't.  You stated they actively censured... whereas Zukerberg's letter simply says they were pressured.  All the details I've found so far point to Biden officials communicating and expressing frustration.  That doesn't make it right... but how do you look at that and say that's more serious than a sitting POTUS who takes multiple steps to overturn an election he lost?  That's some remarkable mental gymnastics to blow off Trump's actions while damning Biden's.

So they didn't censor Facebook, they made Zuckerberg do it for them.  That's a difference that makes no difference.  And yes, successful covert censorship of media is worse than openly disputing and election full of irregularities - including legal ones that other countries in would tolerate like local machines controlling polling and ballot harvesting.

[rmgill]

Let me frame it a different way Sky. 

Trump gets charged for election interference. Ok. 

When are Biden and officials getting charged for
illegal exercise of authority for border entry
illegal exercise of authority on student loans
illegal exercise of authority on speech
illegal exercise of authority on the press
illegal exercise of authority on surveillance
illegal exercise of authority vis a vis prosecutions?

[Skywalkre]

3 minutes ago, R011 said:

So they didn't censor Facebook, they made Zuckerberg do it for them.  That's a difference that makes no difference.  And yes, successful covert censorship of media is worse than openly disputing and election full of irregularities - including legal ones that other countries in would tolerate like local machines controlling polling and ballot harvesting.

Pressuring the DoJ to make false statements about a stolen election so fake electors would have an avenue, pressuring your VP to take actions in not certifying or accepting alternate electors (something outside his Constitutional powers) and a host of other issues outlined in the indictments and sworn testimony that's out there for everyone to see is just openly disputing an election or exercising legal options?  And the bolded bit... so you're a closet 'stolen election' believer?  If you've got anything of value you should go throw it in the thread we have.  Would save Murph from continuing to embarrass himself.

[rmgill]

17 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Pressuring the DoJ to make false statements about a stolen election so fake electors would have an avenue, pressuring your VP to take actions in not certifying or accepting alternate electors (something outside his Constitutional powers) and a host of other issues outlined in the indictments and sworn testimony that's out there for everyone to see is just openly disputing an election or exercising legal options?  And the bolded bit... so you're a closet 'stolen election' believer?  If you've got anything of value you should go throw it in the thread we have.  Would save Murph from continuing to embarrass himself.

Can you substantiate the above? I could just take your avenue and say it's all unconfirmed, rumors and not really substantiated by any credible news source. How about a timeline with some annotations? 

Sort of like how you've been ignoring the censorship that's been going on for about 6 or so years. 

Frankly, given the basis of some of the current crop of cases against Trump, I'm really not all that persuaded. The one you hang your hat on for conviction is not exactly the paragon of due process rights. 

And, please address how a federal judge can say a prosecutor can't effect a case and the prosecutor literally turns around and does the same thing again, in violation fo the judge's order. 


Oh, let me make a very clear point. 

Trump pressured Pence to not count battle ground states. Did Pence do so? 

Who decides on how electors are certified by congress?

Can someone from the house file criminal charges against someone in the senate for filibustering a vote? Can the DOJ do so? Can you get a special prosecutor to do so? Can the special prosecutor file charges against a political organization that pressures their senator to filibuster a vote they don't like? 

 

Edited August 28 by rmgill

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

If that's the case therewere several so called insurrections of a half dozen or so people each.  At that point, dignifying it with the name is absurd.  Hardly Guy Faulkes level.

How many times in American history has a lynch mob wwaving Confederate flags gets into the Senate floor, looking for a vice president to string up?

Perhaps this happens every 4 years, in which case I'm making too much of it.

[rmgill]

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

How many times in American history has a lynch mob wwaving Confederate flags gets into the Senate floor, looking for a vice president to string up?

You mean aside from the time your lot burned DC in 1814? Not exactly Confederate flags. 

We have another incident where Richard Lawrence, a British immigrant tried to murder Andrew Jackson. Lawrence thought he was Richard the III and that the US owned him money. 

There's the incident where an abolitionists senator, Thomas Hart Benton, drew a pistol on the floor of the senate and threatened to murder a fellow senator. 

In 1861 a mob tried to break into the capitol to disrupt the count of the election. General Winfield Scott, in command of the capitol security force stopped the mob. 

There's the shooting of William Taulbee by Charles Kincaid in 1890. 

There was a bomb planted in the Senateby Eric Muenter in 1915. 

Then there was Marlin Kemmerer who tried to shoot and bomb people in the senate. He was persuded against doing so by several bystanders. 

There's the 1954 United States Capitol shooting. By pro Puerto Rican Nationalists. 28 were killed. Two days later they tried to assassinate President Truman. 

The weather underground planted a bomb in the Senate in 1971. 

in 1983 we had Israel Rubinowits who tried to set off an incendiary device in congress. He was wanting world hunger to addressed. 

Then there's the communist 1983 United States Senate bombing. 

There a many more smaller incidents and the J6 incident. But two sets of flag waving commies. 2 Sets of flag waving Brits. Lots of incidents over other issues, insanity and of course abolition of slavery. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_violent_incidents_at_the_United_States_Capitol 

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Perhaps this happens every 4 years, in which case I'm making too much of it.

Admittedly, we don't have the UK's storied history of violent resolutions to the transition of power. How many civil wars and wars of succession has the UK had since Parliament's formation? Perhaps we should depose and execute our head of state? You've got a King Charles again, show us how that's done? 

[R011]

36 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

How many times in American history has a lynch mob wwaving Confederate flags gets into the Senate floor, looking for a vice president to string up?

Perhaps this happens every 4 years, in which case I'm making too much of it.

Ann exaggeration even given the presence of some scattered individuals with vaguely violent intent.

How many times has a Left wing mob invaded a Congressional hearing room to intimidate the members of the committee, attacked a federal courthouse, declared part of a city to be independent, or illegally demonstrated outside a Supreme Court judges home to intimidate him?

[R011]

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

Pressuring the DoJ to make false statements about a stolen election so fake electors would have an avenue, pressuring your VP to take actions in not certifying or accepting alternate electors (something outside his Constitutional powers) and a host of other issues outlined in the indictments and sworn testimony that's out there for everyone to see is just openly disputing an election or exercising legal options?  And the bolded bit... so you're a closet 'stolen election' believer?  If you've got anything of value you should go throw it in the thread we have.  Would save Murph from continuing to embarrass himself.

No.  Asking the DoJ to actually conduct a proper investigation into a possibly stolen election and asking officials to do due diligence instead of rubber stamping.

Is there a section in the First Amendment that says a president can't dispute an election whether rightly or mistakenly?

A third of Americans think that election was stolen.  Instead of supporting measures to reassure people that future elections would be fully transparent and fair, the Democrats have opposed any such measures.