If you still don’t see it was an attempted coup

[homersapien 12,265]

On 1/15/2022 at 2:37 AM, TexasTiger said:

You clearly aren’t following this story even when I lay it in front of you. You’re a relentless dog with a bone.

In Grump's mind, if the attempt failed for whatever reason  - including incompetence - then it never happened at all. 

Nothing to be concerned about.

 

[I_M4_AU 8,981]

23 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And you don't get indictments with "blown up hooey".  But we won't hear the details until the trials.

In Merrick Garland’s DOJ you do.

[homersapien 12,265]

43 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

In Merrick Garland’s DOJ you do.

Says.........you? 

 

"The complaint enumerates a long list of actions that bolster the conspiracy charges, including encrypted communications, gathering and transporting weapons, recruiting and training teams, and using social media to communicate with co-conspirators. Its description of the group’s accumulated arsenal and paramilitary attack removes any doubt this was some nonviolent protest."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/16/merrick-garland-seditious-conspiracy-indictment-changes-everything/

Edited January 16, 2022 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 4,161]

"I don’t mean to understate the seriousness of January 6th, even though it’s been absurdly misreported for over a year now. No one from a country where these things actually happen could mistake 1/6 for “a coup .” In the real version, the mob doesn’t take selfies and blaze doobies after seizing the palace, and the would-be dictator doesn’t spend 187 minutes snacking and watching Fox before tweeting “go home.” Instead, he works the phones nonstop to rally precinct chiefs, generals, and airport officials to the cause, because a coup is a real attempt to seize power. Britannica says the “chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements.” We saw none of that on January 6th. January 6th was a massive LARP that got out of hand." 

Matt Taibbi

[Grumps 3,706]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

In Grump's mind, if the attempt failed for whatever reason  - including incompetence - then it never happened at all. 

Nothing to be concerned about.

 

That's EXACTLY what I think. It is so awesome how you get me!

Oh yeah, even you couldn't even say that Trump did anything illegal...only extralegal. 🤣

[I_M4_AU 8,981]

54 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Says.........you? 

 

"The complaint enumerates a long list of actions that bolster the conspiracy charges, including encrypted communications, gathering and transporting weapons, recruiting and training teams, and using social media to communicate with co-conspirators. Its description of the group’s accumulated arsenal and paramilitary attack removes any doubt this was some nonviolent protest."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/16/merrick-garland-seditious-conspiracy-indictment-changes-everything/

The walls are closing in, breaking news a new bombshell report, if I had to guess; this is not going to end well.

[SLAG-91 1,612]

Welp, that's it, then.

 

[DKW 86 7,914]

Anything that stops trump in his tracks is fine by me. 

Second, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies elected officials from holding federal office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” Federal law also states that “whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

[homersapien 12,265]

20 hours ago, Grumps said:

That's EXACTLY what I think. It is so awesome how you get me!

Oh yeah, even you couldn't even say that Trump did anything illegal...only extralegal. 🤣

Just to clarify your understanding, I think Trump is a traitor who created and propagated a seditious movement that attempted to overturn an election in an extralegal way.  That's a crime IMO.

Legalistically, it's similar to the crime of "attempted murder".

The fact he didn't succeed in no ways absolves him of that  criminal act. 

For you to claim he is innocent because there is not a specific law on the books that specifically prohibits a sitting POTUS from committing such a seditious act in no way means he is innocent.

To think otherwise defies rationality and is clearly cultish. 

Edited January 17, 2022 by homersapien

[aubiefifty 18,322]

19 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

"I don’t mean to understate the seriousness of January 6th, even though it’s been absurdly misreported for over a year now. No one from a country where these things actually happen could mistake 1/6 for “a coup .” In the real version, the mob doesn’t take selfies and blaze doobies after seizing the palace, and the would-be dictator doesn’t spend 187 minutes snacking and watching Fox before tweeting “go home.” Instead, he works the phones nonstop to rally precinct chiefs, generals, and airport officials to the cause, because a coup is a real attempt to seize power. Britannica says the “chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements.” We saw none of that on January 6th. January 6th was a massive LARP that got out of hand." 

Matt Taibbi

this is just an opinion piece and nothing more. the people that were there beg to differ.

[aubiefifty 18,322]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Anything that stops trump in his tracks is fine by me. 

Second, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies elected officials from holding federal office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” Federal law also states that “whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

it is funny i just realized i have not seen a maga hat in a long time. i have seen a couple of bumper stickers but they are hard to get off.

[homersapien 12,265]

Trump’s Arizona project shows the dire threat to American democracy

By Paul Waldman

 

Electoral politics today can feel like a combination of the mundane and the terrifying. In many places, debates and elections between relatively sane adversaries take place as they always have. Yet in others, more than a moment’s observation leads one to fear that the American system is cracking apart.

Those of us who sit up nights worrying about the next few years — not that our favored candidates might lose, but that the stage is being set for a collapse of our democracy — can easily be accused of getting too worked up over minor problems and the utterances of a few kooks. And maybe we are; the future is always uncertain.

But if you look at a place such as Arizona — where the fate of U.S. democracy could well be decided — it’s hard not to feel afraid.

Former president Donald Trump went there Saturday for a rally of the faithful, and what was most disturbing wasn’t even Trump’s own litany of lies and conspiracy theories. If you sat through Trump’s tired recitation of the old hits, you’d think he was slipping into irrelevance, a pathetic loser trying to convince a dwindling cadre of fans he was still relevant.

No, what mattered about the event was the parade of Arizona politicians who came to pay tribute to him, one more deranged than the next, each there because they hope they can ride Trump’s support to their own positions of power.

And they just might.

Amid the expected GOP congressmen and right-wing media figures was Kari Lake, the former local news anchor whose campaign for Arizona governor is based on her embrace of Trump’s election lies. She has said the leading Democratic candidate, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, should be imprisoned for presiding over a fair election in 2020. Trump has endorsed Lake, and she leads in primary polls.

And there was secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem, whom Trump has also endorsed. You probably haven’t heard of Finchem, but it is almost impossible to exaggerate what a fanatic he is. He came to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, to protest the election, and he maintains that the vote in Arizona was stolen. Finchem is a QAnon conspiracy theorist who says there are “a whole lot of elected officials” who participate “in a pedophile network in the distribution of children.” He is also a self-proclaimed member of the far-right Oath Keepers.

Imagine for a moment: It’s 2024, we have an incredibly close presidential election, and it all comes down to Arizona, where the election is being run by an Oath Keeper and QAnon conspiracy theorist who has devoted himself to the mission of making sure Donald Trump gets elected.

If that doesn’t frighten you, I don’t know what would.

Trump himself is not bothering to hide his intention of getting officials elected who will be in a position to steal the 2024 election for him. “We have to be a lot sharper the next time when it comes to counting the vote,” he said in a recent video. “Sometimes the vote counter is more important than the candidate. … They have to get tougher and smarter.” All over the country, Republicans who promote Trump’s lies about 2020 are running for secretary of state. And some of them are going to win.

There are signs an increasing number of Republicans are worried that Trump might lead their party to future defeats. A few are even willing to quietly disagree with him here and there. But there is still no doubt he controls the party.

He’ll be the presidential nominee if he runs in 2024 (as it increasingly appears he will). When he endorses a primary candidate, there’s a good chance that person is going to win. Conservative media is still in thrall to him. Every Republican knows that if they oppose him, they risk their careers. His grip is secure.

And Arizona is one of his key projects. Like Georgia, it’s a formerly red state that has been trending blue, where he lost narrowly last time and where some Republicans in the state’s power structure were unwilling to go along with his attempt to undo the election results. So he’s moving to purge those Republicans and replace them with his own slate of far-right candidates who will be judged on one measure above all: Are they willing to repeat his lies about 2020 to prove they’ll be there for him if he needs to steal the 2024 election?

There are plenty of commentators who will say that liberal warnings about our democracy being in peril are overblown. I hope they’re right. But I wish there was more reason to think they are.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/17/trump-arizona-election-threat-democracy/

[homersapien 12,265]

[Grumps 3,706]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

Just to clarify your understanding, I think Trump is a traitor who created and propagated a seditious movement that attempted to overturn an election in an extralegal way.  That's a crime IMO.

Legalistically, it's similar to the crime of "attempted murder".

The fact he didn't succeed in no ways absolves him of that  criminal act. 

For you to claim he is innocent because there is not a specific law on the books that specifically prohibits a sitting POTUS from committing such a seditious act in no way means he is innocent.

To think otherwise defies rationality and is clearly cultish. 

Thanks for clarifying a little. So what are you claiming Trump's crime to be? 

Did I claim Trump to be innocent? I don't remember claiming that. I think I said that I don't know what he did that was in violation of the law. The answer that I got when I asked is that he motivated others to break the law.  I do think that anyone who doesn't violate a specific law on the books is not guilty of violating the law.

Once again, I accept that you think I am irrational and am in the MAGA cult.

[DKW 86 7,914]

On 1/17/2022 at 8:46 AM, aubiefifty said:

it is funny i just realized i have not seen a maga hat in a long time. i have seen a couple of bumper stickers but they are hard to get off.

I worked in a place where MAGA, FJB, LGB, and huge trump banners were on full display 24-7 just 2 weeks ago. Folks, they are out there in droves. The MCRP and the ARP are eaten up with them.

 

[DKW 86 7,914]

12 hours ago, Grumps said:

Thanks for clarifying a little. So what are you claiming Trump's crime to be? 

Did I claim Trump to be innocent? I don't remember claiming that. I think I said that I don't know what he did that was in violation of the law. The answer that I got when I asked is that he motivated others to break the law.  I do think that anyone who doesn't violate a specific law on the books is not guilty of violating the law.

Once again, I accept that you think I am irrational and am in the MAGA cult.

No one cares what your opinion is or was in a courtroom. You must PROVE that Law X was broken. I actually agree with most of the opinions here. trump should never be back in power again. He should never have been in power in the first place. But in a courtroom, the first thing a prosecutor must do is name the law broken. They must then factually prove that that law was broken on this date, at this time, by this person.  Knowing that a person is a bad guy doesnt mean s*** in a courtroom. If it didnt, then when the bad guys get in office they could arrest, try, anf jail the good guys for nothing too. Real Democracy is a messy thing and rarely fits the opinions of the masses. 

You know that there was a group that tried convicted and sentenced people even when there were clearly no laws broken.

 

How the **** does this get a facepalm????? Some folks here have no clue about reality. 

Edited January 18, 2022 by DKW 86

[homersapien 12,265]

12 hours ago, Grumps said:

Thanks for clarifying a little. So what are you claiming Trump's crime to be? 

Did I claim Trump to be innocent? I don't remember claiming that. I think I said that I don't know what he did that was in violation of the law. The answer that I got when I asked is that he motivated others to break the law.  I do think that anyone who doesn't violate a specific law on the books is not guilty of violating the law.

Once again, I accept that you think I am irrational and am in the MAGA cult.

 

Here. 

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim

As a Trump cultist, You will no doubt knock yourself out looking for loopholes to argue Trump is "innocent".

The seditious riot was caused by a few hundreds of your fellow Trump cultists who just spontaneously got the crazy idea that the election was stolen. 

Right?

 

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,265]

Here you go Grump, there are plenty of legal loopholes revealed in this piece for you to champion:

The January 6th Criminal Case Against Donald Trump

It’s too early to say what investigators will find, but whether to prosecute the former President is becoming the defining issue of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s tenure.

 

By David Rohde January 5, 2022

In hindsight, Donald Trump’s intentions could not appear clearer. During the final months of the 2020 Presidential race, he systematically conducted a disinformation campaign that convinced many of his supporters the election would be stolen by Democrats. After losing, he doubled down on those false claims and repeatedly pressured state election officials, Justice Department prosecutors, federal and state judges, members of Congress, and the Vice-President to overturn the results. After those efforts failed, he appeared at a rally in Washington, D.C., where he urged thousands of his supporters to stop Congress from certifying his defeat. For hours, as they stormed the Capitol, he failed to act.

Those steps, the leaders of the congressional committee investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol contend, seemingly constitute a crime. But, based on the evidence made public so far, the unprecedented nature of Trump’s actions—together with the vagueness of laws regarding the certification of Presidential elections, legal loopholes, and his manipulation of others—could allow the former President to escape being criminally charged for his role in events surrounding the attack.

A congressional staffer with knowledge of the committee’s investigation said that it is ongoing and “too early to say” what it will yield. The staffer pointed out that Trump has a history of trying to avoid explicitly implicating himself in wrongdoing over the years, as he did in the Oval Office call with Ukraine’s President—which, nevertheless, led to his first impeachment. “Trump seems to have been very careful never to give an order—to strongly insinuate what should happen rather than giving an order,” the staffer told me, comparing Trump with Henry II of England, who famously (perhaps apocryphally) engineered the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury by signalling to subordinates his desire to be free of the religious leader without explicitly ordering it. The staffer, who asked not to be named, invoked a phrase said to have been uttered by the twelfth-century king: “ ‘Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?’ ”

Recent statements by the committee chair, Bennie Thompson, and the vice-chair, Liz Cheney—one of only two Republicans on the panel—have raised expectations that the panel will refer Trump to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. Such a step would increase the political pressure on Attorney General Merrick Garland to prosecute Trump. In a television interview on Sunday, Thompson said that the panel is examining whether Trump committed a crime: “If there’s any confidence on the part of our committee that something criminal we believe has occurred, we’ll make the referral.” And Cheney, in a speech last month, mentioned a specific charge: “Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes?”

Federal prosecutors in Washington have charged dozens of rioters who stormed the Capitol with felony counts of obstructing an official proceeding of Congress, which carry a potential sentence of up to twenty years. But legal experts said that convicting Trump of such a charge could be difficult. Ilya Somin, a libertarian legal scholar at George Mason University and a critic of the former President, told me that Trump’s lawyers would likely argue that it did not apply to him because he did not enter the Capitol on January 6th. “I think it is very clear that it applies to the people who entered the building,” Somin said. “If Trump did enter the building and lead the attack in person, it would be much easier to convict him of this and other offenses.”

The congressional staffer with knowledge of the committee’s work said that the media had exaggerated Thompson and Cheney’s statements. “The criminal-referral stuff has gotten blown out of proportion,” the staffer cautioned. “It has become the shiny new object.” (Another shiny new object emerged on Tuesday, when the committee asked the Fox News host Sean Hannity to voluntarily testify about text messages that he’d sent which show he had “advance knowledge regarding President Trump’s and his legal team’s planning for January 6th.” Hannity warned against Republicans in Congress trying to overturn the results, writing on January 5th that he was “very worried about the next 48 hours.”) The staffer said that the committee is primarily focussed on creating a definitive history of events on January 6th and recommending laws and reforms that would prevent future attempts to overturn elections—“giving the American people the full picture of what happened and making recommendations to help insure that nothing like January 6th happens again.”

Ultimately, the decision about whether to prosecute Trump lies with Garland, a former federal judge who has made restoring public faith in the political neutrality of the Justice Department his core goal. Despite Garland’s attempts to divorce the Justice Department from politically charged prosecutions, it is increasingly clear that investigating Trump is becoming the defining issue of his tenure. The continued defiance of Trump and his allies is forcing Garland to make a decision faced by none of his predecessors: whether to prosecute a former President who tried to subvert an election and appears ready to do so again. Democrats are demanding that Garland move more aggressively, with Representative Ruben Gallego, of Arizona, declaring his effort so far “weak” and “feckless,” and contending that there are “a lot more of the organizers of January 6th that should be arrested by now.”

David Laufman, a former senior Justice Department official, said he disagreed with criticism of the Justice Department for not having already charged Trump criminally. “Notwithstanding the horrors of January 6th, D.O.J. should not be pursuing criminal investigations or prosecutions against former President Trump or others connected to the attack on the Capitol unless both the facts and the law support doing so under established policy,” he said. “It’s the ‘Department of Justice’—not the ‘Department of Retribution’—and we don’t want to see the rule of law eroded just to make us feel good.” But Laufman also called for prosecutors to not go easy on Trump, adding that the department shouldn’t “be shying away from using the full weight of its enforcement authorities against Trump or anyone else simply because doing so could be perceived as politically motivated.”

On Wednesday afternoon, Garland gave a speech that was clearly designed to reassure the public and counter critics. The twenty-five-minute address was vintage Garland. He pledged political neutrality and declared that “we follow the facts—not an agenda or an assumption.” He promised equal justice for all: “There cannot be different rules depending on one’s political party or affiliation. There cannot be different rules for friends and foes.” And he vowed further measures. “The actions we have taken thus far will not be our last,” he said, adding that “the Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law—whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy.”

In an era when the majority of Republicans falsely believe that the 2020 election was fraudulent and the majority of Democrats think that it was not, Garland will be demonized no matter what action he takes regarding Trump. The Attorney General, based on his speech, continues to believe that he can restore “normal order”—a Justice Department term for basing decisions on whether to charge defendants strictly on the facts of a case. He continues to believe that the majority of Americans still support the principle that all people should be treated fairly under the law, including Donald Trump. And that the majority will reject political violence and trust the judicial system. At the moment, that belief, for Garland and all Americans, is an enormous political gamble.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-january-6th-criminal-case-against-donald-trump

Edited January 18, 2022 by homersapien

[CoffeeTiger 5,914]

On 1/16/2022 at 12:13 PM, I_M4_AU said:

In Merrick Garland’s DOJ you do.

 

Everything is always a conspiracy with you people. 

The FBI is out to get you

The DoJ is out to get you 

the Media is out to get you 

The Capitol police force is out to get you

The jan 6 committee that the GOP refused to participate in is out to get you because the GOP isn't participating in it. 

 

Everything bad or negative that happens to the GOP or that the GOP does can always be explained away with a "well _(insert here) is biased and lying to everyone" 

 

Nothing can ever be used as evidence of Republican wrongdoing because EVERYONE outside of the Republican party itself are democrats, communist, antifa, etc and can't be trusted. 

 

Crazy. 

[AUFAN78 4,161]

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,914]

9 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

 

 

 

oh WOW!  a documentary of MAGA's Looking for Democrat voting fraud in the 2020 Election. 

 

Good find 78 

[AUFAN78 4,161]

10 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

 

oh WOW!  a documentary of MAGA's Looking for Democrat voting fraud in the 2020 Election. 

 

Good find 78 

Yeah well, I think we know what it really meant. Sad.

[jj3jordan 2,172]

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Everything is always a conspiracy with you people. 

The FBI is out to get you

The DoJ is out to get you 

the Media is out to get you 

The Capitol police force is out to get you

The jan 6 committee that the GOP refused to participate in is out to get you because the GOP isn't participating in it. 

 

Everything bad or negative that happens to the GOP or that the GOP does can always be explained away with a "well _(insert here) is biased and lying to everyone" 

 

Nothing can ever be used as evidence of Republican wrongdoing because EVERYONE outside of the Republican party itself are democrats, communist, antifa, etc and can't be trusted. 

 

Crazy. 

Not everything.

Yes if you are Trump or a MAGA.

Ditto.

Only if the democrat party wants them to.

Yes if you are calmly walking between the ropes and you are not Ray Epps.

Nancy refused to allow the GOP choices for the committee.

Not all. But enough.

Evidence is evidence. Unless nobody wants to see it.

[CoffeeTiger 5,914]

4 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Not everything.

Yes if you are Trump or a MAGA.

Ditto.

Only if the democrat party wants them to.

Yes if you are calmly walking between the ropes and you are not Ray Epps.

Nancy refused to allow the GOP choices for the committee.

Not all. But enough.

Evidence is evidence. Unless nobody wants to see it.

Says: "Not Everything" 

Proceeds to explain how everything I listed "really it" is against Republican's. 

The GOP "choices" were denied because they had already publicly come out in opposition to the committee and declared that they supported the Jan 6 rioters...of course they weren't allowed. They were already admitting they wouldn't be impartial and would only try to sabotage the committee and obstruct it. 

If the GOP had at least tried to promote some who could even "pretend" to be serious and impartial about the committee then they would have been accepted. 

[I_M4_AU 8,981]

3 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Everything is always a conspiracy with you people. 

The FBI is out to get you

The DoJ is out to get you 

the Media is out to get you 

The Capitol police force is out to get you

The jan 6 committee that the GOP refused to participate in is out to get you because the GOP isn't participating in it. 

 

Everything bad or negative that happens to the GOP or that the GOP does can always be explained away with a "well _(insert here) is biased and lying to everyone" 

 

Nothing can ever be used as evidence of Republican wrongdoing because EVERYONE outside of the Republican party itself are democrats, communist, antifa, etc and can't be trusted. 

 

Crazy. 

I am cynical of an organizations that are more politically motivated than finding the truth.

When the DOJ weaponizes the FBI to go after parents in school board meeting as domestic terrorists, when a Synagogue is attacked by a UK citizen yelling anti-Semitic terms yet can’t determine if they attacked the Jewish community, when there are so many unanswered questions about Jan. 6th after a year and gins backup in a midterm election year, yeah I feel I’m being lied to.

Otherwise I would be in the same cult you are.