Is The 1/6 Commission Coming?

#8,701
#8,701
RockyTop85 said:
Appreciate the response.

I’d be shocked if you didn’t at least know it was wrong at the time, but I respect your opinions (one of the reasons this one bewilders me) and understand theres room here for a distinction between intuiting that it’s wrong and later learning that it’s criminal. I just don’t think that makes a difference for Trump.

The thing that would make a difference - he doesn’t understand how elections work on a fundamental “loser goes home” level - is not believable. Even as bad as he looks he’s clearly functioning above that level.

If that’s right, then he knew he was trying to do something that was fundamentally wrong. The fact that the minority of lawyers who told him it might work failed to fully consider the consequences is just a risk you take when you go shopping for lawyers who will accept money to enable your bad behavior.

I’d be fine with him getting a pardon on the criminal charges in exchange for a new law being passed that imposes criminal penalties with clearer definitions of the prohibited conduct. But the idea that he’s not personally responsible for his own actions seems incorrect.
Click to expand...

There was/is nothing legally wrong with his actions as Pence could have done whatever he wanted without Court review. I am failing to see how a crime could be committed for telling someone this.
 
Last edited:
#8,702
#8,702
CobbVol said:
My guess is Trump did not understand the advice they were offering him in challenging the election.

So again, if it is criminal why has he not be charged by Jack Smith or any other prosecutor?
Click to expand...
You’re effectively arguing that the former President of the United States and current nominee is incompetent to stand trial because he’s too stupid to understand how elections work. Not buying it, and if you actually believed he was that stupid you wouldn’t care enough to keep defending him.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. He’s been indicted for this. You were just whining about it two posts ago.
 
#8,703
#8,703
whodeycin85 said:
So basically if a state fraudulently certified the electors but if proven to have been fraudulent after J6. What avenue is there, or do we just have to suck it up and accept a fraudulent election??
Click to expand...
Your example presumes the state is willingly acting against their state constitution process and imposing their own results. If that’s the case then it better be under investigation by some entity with actual authority to change the state’s certification by safe harbor date. In 2020 using Georgia as an example you had all Republicans in control of the process. Even in Arizona you had a republican incumbent in office at the time. The emotional plea doesn’t pass the bar for me I find it not compelling for the 2020 case
 
#8,704
#8,704
RockyTop85 said:
You’re effectively arguing that the former President of the United States and current nominee is incompetent to stand trial because he’s too stupid to understand how elections work. Not buying it, and if you actually believed he was that stupid you wouldn’t care enough to keep defending him.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. He’s been indicted for this. You were just whining about it two posts ago.
Click to expand...

Or more like he is confused what the problem is after the fact. As I am.
 
#8,706
#8,706
VOLLeeann said:
DOJ report shows FBI field sources stormed the Capitol on January 6th !!!

Conspiracy! Coverup! BS?

Click to expand...


Why is it classified? Because what they have been doing is treason. Why would this ever be classified? It might because of prosecutions but it really shouldn't be classified.
 
#8,707
#8,707
whodeycin85 said:
So basically if a state fraudulently certified the electors but if proven to have been fraudulent after J6. What avenue is there, or do we just have to suck it up and accept a fraudulent election??
Click to expand...
By the way I was on board with a lot of this narrative back in 2020 because I couldn’t comprehend that high profile legal counsel would put a price tag on their integrity and reputation. Holy cow was I wrong and have said so multiple times since. There never has been a compelling case to reject any state certified electors in the 2020 election.
 
#8,708
#8,708
NorthDallas40 said:
Your example presumes the state is willingly acting against their state constitution process and imposing their own results. If that’s the case then it better be under investigation by some entity with actual authority to change the state’s certification by safe harbor date. In 2020 using Georgia as an example you had all Republicans in control of the process. Even in Arizona you had a republican incumbent in office at the time. The emotional plea doesn’t pass the bar for me I find it not compelling for the 2020 case
Click to expand...
Take GA they violated their own election laws...and now that Fulton county doubled scanned 3k plus votes...in 1 county. Both GA and Az violated their own signature verification process..not to mention chain of custody..so yea state will most definitely willing do so.
 
#8,709
#8,709
NorthDallas40 said:
By the way I was on board with a lot of this narrative back in 2020 because I couldn’t comprehend that high profile legal counsel would put a price tag on their integrity and reputation. Holy cow was I wrong and have said so multiple times since. There never has been a compelling case to reject any state certified electors in the 2020 election.
Click to expand...
Fair enough
 
#8,710
#8,710
whodeycin85 said:
Take GA they violated their own election laws...and now that Fulton county doubled scanned 3k plus votes...in 1 county. Both GA and Az violated their own signature verification process..not to mention chain of custody..so yea state will most definitely willing do so.
Click to expand...
Both GA and AZ had republican governors and attorney generals. Again I find it an uncompelling argument
 
#8,712
#8,712
RockyTop85 said:
You’re effectively arguing that the former President of the United States and current nominee is incompetent to stand trial because he’s too stupid to understand how elections work. Not buying it, and if you actually believed he was that stupid you wouldn’t care enough to keep defending him.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. He’s been indicted for this. You were just whining about it two posts ago.
Click to expand...
I will try this again.
January 6th has been described as an insurrection by many. Does Jack Smith and you for that matter think Jan 6th was an insurrection?
If yes, then why did Jack Smith not charge him with insurrection, sedition, and/or treason?
 
#8,713
#8,713
CobbVol said:
I will try this again.
January 6th has been described as an insurrection by many. Does Jack Smith and you for that matter think Jan 6th was an insurrection?
If yes, then why did Jack Smith not charge him with insurrection, sedition, and/or treason?
Click to expand...

J6 was planned by Congress, CIA, FBI, etc.... it worked but its starting to slowly unravel. Kind of like those face diaper lies, Russia Gate lies, laptop lies, etc.

I'm not sure how the whole prosecution isn't a willful attempt to waste and fraudulently spend money not authorized by Congress, and all those associated with it charged. (but this is why I say this country isn't going to make it medium and long term)
 
#8,716
#8,716
CobbVol said:
I will try this again.
January 6th has been described as an insurrection by many. Does Jack Smith and you for that matter think Jan 6th was an insurrection?
If yes, then why did Jack Smith not charge him with insurrection, sedition, and/or treason?
Click to expand...
We’ve been discussing the attempt to unlawfully remain in power that extended back to around the time of the election, not just January 6th.

Is that still what we’re discussing?
 
#8,717
#8,717
LSU-SIU said:
J6 was planned by Congress, CIA, FBI, etc.... it worked but its starting to slowly unravel. Kind of like those face diaper lies, Russia Gate lies, laptop lies, etc.

I'm not sure how the whole prosecution isn't a willful attempt to waste and fraudulently spend money not authorized by Congress, and all those associated with it charged. (but this is why I say this country isn't going to make it medium and long term)
Click to expand...
No doubt the NSA was involved too
 
#8,719
#8,719
RockyTop85 said:
We’ve been discussing the attempt to unlawfully remain in power that extended back to around the time of the election, not just January 6th.

Is that still what we’re discussing?
Click to expand...
Talking about the timeframe that yielded these 4 charges:
  • Count one: conspiracy to defraud the United States, a violation of 18 U.S.C 371
  • Count two: conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512 (k)
  • Count three: obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512 (c)(2),2
  • Count four: conspiracy against rights, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 241
 
#8,721
#8,721
RockyTop85 said:
We’ve been discussing the attempt to unlawfully remain in power that extended back to around the time of the election, not just January 6th.

Is that still what we’re discussing?
Click to expand...

You're not really discussing anything, everything you are providing appears to be very vague if that. I can't find anything unlawful as you have specified. You don't really care about the law or whether not its being enforced... you only care about you getting what you want.

Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

The “I won’t wear a mask” thing is peak Trumpism:
Click to expand...
Complete ****ing lunatic.

The lunatics stick out like a sore thumb, its really good they color their hair purple. Just imagine the year is 2020 and he is convinced that face diaper is going to save him.
 
Last edited:
#8,723
#8,723
CobbVol said:
Talking about the timeframe that yielded these 4 charges:
  • Count one: conspiracy to defraud the United States, a violation of 18 U.S.C 371
  • Count two: conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512 (k)
  • Count three: obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512 (c)(2),2
  • Count four: conspiracy against rights, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 241
Click to expand...

Sure. I think it’s a bad faith line of discussion, but I’ll answer in good faith.

The tl;dr is that whether or not a set of actions meets the common definition of a word and whether it meets a statutory definition are not the same question.

Criminal statutes describe an act or course of conduct. Those descriptions define the crime. They can be broken down into elements that have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Each of the criminal definitions you mentioned involve elements that can’t be proven or there are constitutional/procedural barriers.

Insurrection and rebellion, 18 U.S.C. 2383: Trump didn’t personally engage in violence and there are concerns with charging him under a theory of incitement that is based on political speech, which is at the core of the 1st Amendment.

Treason 18 U.S.C. 2381: I don’t think we need a lot of discussion about why the statutory elements aren’t met.

Seditious Conspiracy 18 U.S.C. 2384: Looks like this is basically the obstruction charge with the additional element of “by force.” See insurrection, above.

How the term insurrection is used in conversation need not conform to such a precise definition because a conversation is different from the government putting someone in jail. Even if we assumed some counter-factual reality wherein all conversations had to be statutorily precise, people have been charged, tried, and convicted by an impartial jury for seditious conspiracy related to their actions on January 6. So wouldn’t that alleviate this particular concern with people calling January 6 an insurrection?

Examples:
1. A word like “disability” may be used by a mental health provider to describe someone’s intellectual functioning, but that doesn’t mean the person would necessarily be found “disabled” by a particular government agency. How the word is defined by SSA or the VA differs from how it is defined in the DSM and/or how it is used in the profession, and those uses may differ from use of the word in common speech.

2. Trump was found liable for acts that, as we discuss them in daily conversation, would be described as rape, but are legally defined as “only” sexual battery by the state of New York.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top