If DeSantis wins

[Asita]

Trump said the following in his January 6th speech:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

We'll see who's right shortly because the case will be heard in the Supreme Court. I feel the case is paper thin against Trump. I wouldn't be shocked if he is considered an insurrectionist because I don't know everything he said and did, but as far as I've seen, I've haven't seen anything that would make him an insurrectionist.

Ok, first of all, that has absolutely nothing to do with your attempts to equivocate Trump's speech with a Beastie Boys song.

Second, Trump also said that they needed to show everyone that they were "not going to take it any longer", that they were all here because they "do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they're doing", that they "will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved", that "our country has had enough", that "We're gathered together in the heart of our nation's capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: To save our democracy." That "States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people." That "We want to go back and we want to get this right because we're going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed and we're not going to stand for that", that they would "never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong" and so on and so forth.

It's all fight fight fight, get angry, give Congress a show of force so that they'll see that they can't do this to us, our country is under siege and these cowards - who're "all going out of their way to hurt all of us and to hurt our country. To hurt our country" - don't respect weakness so show them your strength, and if you don't then you won't have a country any more, but if you make them change the vote "history is going to be made", and that they need to " think of what you're doing. Let's say you don't do it...You will have an illegitimate president. That's what you'll have. And we can't let that happen. " You're doing it to protect your country, to protect your children from "the comprehensive assault on our democracy, and the American people are finally standing up and saying no".

The speech is very much about riling the listeners up, assuring them that their anger is righteous and that their cause is just and that the "ruthless" "radical left" democrats are only getting away with it by intimidating the weak republican congressmen into acquience and because they "don't respect weakness", so the crowd has to make a show of force to show their strength, and that they won't have a country anymore if they don't.

Go on, read it. And I mean actually read it.

You're hyper-fixating on a single line and acting like that's some iron-clad shield that invalidates everything else not only in that same speech but in his rhetoric and actions around that speech. And that's beyond idiotic. It's like saying that Guy Fawkes should have been absolved from the gunpowder plot if you found a quote from him saying he wasn't a traitor. That's simply not how it works.

 

[Ag3ma]

A guilty person's defense is inherently about evading accountability.

Do you even understand what you are talking about?

The guilty obviously tend to use what they can to avoid being held responsible. However, there is an expectation that they should still use legal means to defend themselves, rather than illegal. The point of obstruction of justice is that an individual is using illegal means to defend themselves from being held responsible. Witness tampering, destruction of evidence, bribing or threatening officials in the justice process, etc. Obstruction of justice is a particularly serious problem the more powerful an individual is, because that power can also be wielded to unfairly protect themselves. The penalties that can be imposed for obstruction of justice in jurisdictions are potentially huge, and this reflects how serious it is.

I'm just saying that's more essential to the rule of law thing than the thing you're complaining about.

Okay then, explain why.

I mean, I'm fascinated. You don't really know what Rule of Law is, as the last few posts have demonstrated. You don't even apparently grasp "the thing" that I'm complaining about, you don't seem to get why obstruction of justice is a problem. And yet out of this fog of incomprehension, you expect anyone here to think you have a useful word to say on what's "essential" for things you don't understand.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You can say it as many times as you want. Repetition won't make the discussion disappear. The reason you're not encountering any issues is that you don't actually insist on using sex. You make exceptions. Trans people make efforts to look like the gender with which they identify, and you use pronouns in line with their gender identity.

So you can obstinately insist that bio sex is the only way to go all you want. But that's not what you yourself are doing, and that's probably why you're not encountering issues.



Lol, the answer to your question is contained within the question there. "How can I get something wrong if I don't bother to learn it?"

What is your actual point? I told you how the average person and I do pronouns, I really don't know what else you want.

Nope. It's more like I have the option to do either 5+5 or 5x5 and I did 5+5 saying it's 10 and you're saying I'm ignorant for not doing 5x5 instead. People can use pronouns and totally ignore or not care about gender. The people getting mad at someone for using a word differently than them are the ones that haven't bothered to learn anything.

Ok, first of all, that has absolutely nothing to do with your attempts to equivocate Trump's speech with a Beastie Boys song.

Second, Trump also said that they needed to show everyone that they were "not going to take it any longer", that they were all here because they "do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they're doing", that they "will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved", that "our country has had enough", that "We're gathered together in the heart of our nation's capital for one very, very basic and simple reason: To save our democracy." That "States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people." That "We want to go back and we want to get this right because we're going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed and we're not going to stand for that", that they would "never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong" and so on and so forth.

It's all fight fight fight, get angry, give Congress a show of force so that they'll see that they can't do this to us, our country is under siege and these cowards - who're "all going out of their way to hurt all of us and to hurt our country. To hurt our country" - don't respect weakness so show them your strength, and if you don't then you won't have a country any more, but if you make them change the vote "history is going to be made", and that they need to " think of what you're doing. Let's say you don't do it...You will have an illegitimate president. That's what you'll have. And we can't let that happen. " You're doing it to protect your country, to protect your children from "the comprehensive assault on our democracy, and the American people are finally standing up and saying no".

The speech is very much about riling the listeners up, assuring them that their anger is righteous and that their cause is just and that the "ruthless" "radical left" democrats are only getting away with it by intimidating the weak republican congressmen into acquience and because they "don't respect weakness", so the crowd has to make a show of force to show their strength, and that they won't have a country anymore if they don't.

Go on, read it. And I mean actually read it.

You're hyper-fixating on a single line and acting like that's some iron-clad shield that invalidates everything else not only in that same speech but in his rhetoric and actions around that speech. And that's beyond idiotic. It's like saying that Guy Fawkes should have been absolved from the gunpowder plot if you found a quote from him saying he wasn't a traitor. That's simply not how it works.

Again, if that is all there is that Trump did and said, I don't see how that's being an insurrectionist. I brought up the Beastie Boys song because someone said that Trump said the word "fight" somewhere in his speech. You can generally say fight and other things like that and obviously not mean to actually physically fight.

The democrats are currently saying democracy will be over if Trump wins so if the people on the left riot the Capitol if Trump were to win because they think democracy is over, are all the democrats that said that insurrectionists then?

Do you even understand what you are talking about?

The guilty obviously tend to use what they can to avoid being held responsible. However, there is an expectation that they should still use legal means to defend themselves, rather than illegal. The point of obstruction of justice is that an individual is using illegal means to defend themselves from being held responsible. Witness tampering, destruction of evidence, bribing or threatening officials in the justice process, etc. Obstruction of justice is a particularly serious problem the more powerful an individual is, because that power can also be wielded to unfairly protect themselves. The penalties that can be imposed for obstruction of justice in jurisdictions are potentially huge, and this reflects how serious it is.





Okay then, explain why.

I mean, I'm fascinated. You don't really know what Rule of Law is, as the last few posts have demonstrated. You don't even apparently grasp "the thing" that I'm complaining about, you don't seem to get why obstruction of justice is a problem. And yet out of this fog of incomprehension, you expect anyone here to think you have a useful word to say on what's "essential" for things you don't understand.

I fucking understand what you're talking about, it's not a hard concept. You don't understand what I'm talking about. Impartially going after people is more important to rule of law than obstruction of justice, especially in case where there was nothing to obstruct anyway. I didn't say it wasn't a problem, I said one thing is a bigger problem than other thing. Every instance of breaking the law, in theory, should prosecuted to the fullest extent, but in the real world, we only have so many resources and we have to pick and choose where to allocate those resources. Then, by going after Trump for both the initial Russia collusion BS and the obstruction of justice, you're unfairly going after Trump in both instances because the 1st instance shouldn't have even occurred and the 2nd instance is the same because if the situation was the same with any other politician in place, resources wouldn't have been wasted on it.

 

[Silvanus]

What is your actual point? I told you how the average person and I do pronouns, I really don't know what else you want.

I'm disputing things you've said-- pointing out flaws or inconsistencies in the approach you take (or claim to take). Simply telling me how you use pronouns again is completely pointless, because we both already know how you use pronouns. Nobody requires you to repeat it. What I'd like for you to do instead is reassess it.

Nope. It's more like I have the option to do either 5+5 or 5x5 and I did 5+5 saying it's 10 and you're saying I'm ignorant for not doing 5x5 instead. People can use pronouns and totally ignore or not care about gender. The people getting mad at someone for using a word differently than them are the ones that haven't bothered to learn anything.

Language requires mutual understanding. If your usage of a term is not understood by the other member of a conversation, then you haven't communicated it to them. This is why it's very unhelpful for people to unilaterally decide to use terms in specific, exclusive ways, and expect others to somehow understand that's what they're doing.

Eg, it would be unhelpful for me to decide that I'm only ever going to use the older meaning of the word "meat", to refer to food in general rather than animal flesh. That is a technically valid usage. But I can hardly moan if someone says I'm being obtuse or misleading, because i just expect everyone to know I can't be technically inaccurate if I agree with myself that that's how I always use it.

You can't unilaterally decide to exclude certain meanings. And pronouns are generally understood to relate to identity. You unilaterally deciding you only use a certain one of the several valid usages is obtuse, like me in the hypothetical above.

 

[Ag3ma]

I fucking understand what you're talking about, it's not a hard concept.

You say that, but you were clearly having a lot of problems getting the concept with that weird stuff you were saying about CHAZ/CHOP which was completely irrelevant, so honestly I don't believe you.

Impartially going after people is more important to rule of law than obstruction of justice

I asked you to explain your reasoning, not repeat yourself. Fear not, I will do it for you.

Let's imagine two situations.
a) a mob boss up for ordering a number of killings threatens / bribes a jury into acquitting him
b) someone reports a common assault to a policeman, who should have concluded that there was no crime but instead spends four hours investigating in vain.

So, which is more problematic? Okay, it's (a), isn't it. It's obviously (a). Claiming "impartiality" (although you seem to be indicating inappropriate use of resources rather than impartiality) is more important than obstruction of justice is intrinsically a meaningless claim. It's a bit like saying free speech or freedom of movement is more important than the other. That's not a meaningfully answerable question, because circumstances dictate on a case by case basis.

Then, by going after Trump for both the initial Russia collusion BS and the obstruction of justice, you're unfairly going after Trump in both instances because the 1st instance shouldn't have even occurred and the 2nd instance is the same because if the situation was the same with any other politician in place, resources wouldn't have been wasted on it.

So your argument there is that if the first accusation of criminality is wrong, anything that someone does to avoid a charge/penalty is legal, even if it would be otherwise illegal. So let's put that logic into action. A policeman wrongly accuses a man of dropping litter and says the man will have to pay a fine. The man then murders the policeman so the fine cannot be processed. The man cannot be prosecuted for murdering the policeman, because he wouldn't have done that if he hadn't wrongfully been fined.

If Trump and team have not done anything wrong, a preliminary investigation should clear them. A full investigation should also clear them. The latter may be a waste of resources, but in eiher case no-one would be wrongly convicted and it would all go away. How serious really is that? However, at no point did Trump and team have to obstruct justice - they're innocent. But they chose to commit a crime anyway. It's not entrapment, they weren't tricked into it, they chose to. (All allegedly, of course, the charges were not tried to verify.) People can't be allowed to commit crimes at will because the police make a mistake.

Just to press a point here, because there's Trump's confidential documents case due to hit the courts. One of the things Trump is up for in that is... wait for it... obstruction of justice. All that stuff with concealing documents, moving boxes around, even a remarkable allegation from one of Trump's own ex-lawyers that Trump made what the lawyers believed to be is signal that they should help Trump do so. It's almost like a person who obstructs justice even when they're not guilty might also obstruct justice when they are.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'm disputing things you've said-- pointing out flaws or inconsistencies in the approach you take (or claim to take). Simply telling me how you use pronouns again is completely pointless, because we both already know how you use pronouns. Nobody requires you to repeat it. What I'd like for you to do instead is reassess it.



Language requires mutual understanding. If your usage of a term is not understood by the other member of a conversation, then you haven't communicated it to them. This is why it's very unhelpful for people to unilaterally decide to use terms in specific, exclusive ways, and expect others to somehow understand that's what they're doing.

Eg, it would be unhelpful for me to decide that I'm only ever going to use the older meaning of the word "meat", to refer to food in general rather than animal flesh. That is a technically valid usage. But I can hardly moan if someone says I'm being obtuse or misleading, because i just expect everyone to know I can't be technically inaccurate if I agree with myself that that's how I always use it.

You can't unilaterally decide to exclude certain meanings. And pronouns are generally understood to relate to identity. You unilaterally deciding you only use a certain one of the several valid usages is obtuse, like me in the hypothetical above.

Why? I have no problems with pronouns.

That's the definition for pronouns... You do realize everything you're saying can be said about people getting upset about getting misgendered. I can say the exact same thing that they "unilaterally decide to use terms in specific, exclusive ways, and expect others to somehow understand that's what they're doing". You think one side is "right" when they are both exactly the same. The majority of the population uses pronouns based on sex, it's not an antiquated definition. You can exclude certain meanings if they can't be used together, you have to pick one. Literally everything you said can be applied to the other side.

You say that, but you were clearly having a lot of problems getting the concept with that weird stuff you were saying about CHAZ/CHOP which was completely irrelevant, so honestly I don't believe you.



I asked you to explain your reasoning, not repeat yourself. Fear not, I will do it for you.

Let's imagine two situations.
a) a mob boss up for ordering a number of killings threatens / bribes a jury into acquitting him
b) someone reports a common assault to a policeman, who should have concluded that there was no crime but instead spends four hours investigating in vain.

So, which is more problematic? Okay, it's (a), isn't it. It's obviously (a). Claiming "impartiality" (although you seem to be indicating inappropriate use of resources rather than impartiality) is more important than obstruction of justice is intrinsically a meaningless claim. It's a bit like saying free speech or freedom of movement is more important than the other. That's not a meaningfully answerable question, because circumstances dictate on a case by case basis.



So your argument there is that if the first accusation of criminality is wrong, anything that someone does to avoid a charge/penalty is legal, even if it would be otherwise illegal. So let's put that logic into action. A policeman wrongly accuses a man of dropping litter and says the man will have to pay a fine. The man then murders the policeman so the fine cannot be processed. The man cannot be prosecuted for murdering the policeman, because he wouldn't have done that if he hadn't wrongfully been fined.

If Trump and team have not done anything wrong, a preliminary investigation should clear them. A full investigation should also clear them. The latter may be a waste of resources, but in eiher case no-one would be wrongly convicted and it would all go away. How serious really is that? However, at no point did Trump and team have to obstruct justice - they're innocent. But they chose to commit a crime anyway. It's not entrapment, they weren't tricked into it, they chose to. (All allegedly, of course, the charges were not tried to verify.) People can't be allowed to commit crimes at will because the police make a mistake.

Just to press a point here, because there's Trump's confidential documents case due to hit the courts. One of the things Trump is up for in that is... wait for it... obstruction of justice. All that stuff with concealing documents, moving boxes around, even a remarkable allegation from one of Trump's own ex-lawyers that Trump made what the lawyers believed to be is signal that they should help Trump do so. It's almost like a person who obstructs justice even when they're not guilty might also obstruct justice when they are.

CHAZ/CHOP was against the rule of law...

It's not about just the single instances. On whole, not being impartial is worse than obstruction of justice. It's especially worse when the main person from one political party is treated differently than the main person from another party. That's also then an affront to democracy.

Again, you guys don't read what I say...

Every instance of breaking the law, in theory, should prosecuted to the fullest extent, but in the real world, we only have so many resources and we have to pick and choose where to allocate those resources.

 

[Ag3ma]

CHAZ/CHOP was against the rule of law...

You really don't understand.

It's not about just the single instances. On whole, not being impartial is worse than obstruction of justice.

So, still no reasoning of your claim.

Also, and I repeat, the Durham report did not conclude that anyone involved had an undue bias against Trump, so this isn't even really relevant.

Again, you guys don't read what I say...

We do, it's just you don't realise how incoherent your points are to everyone else. Probably because you don't understand what you're trying to discuss.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You really don't understand.



So, still no reasoning of your claim.

Also, and I repeat, the Durham report did not conclude that anyone involved had an undue bias against Trump, so this isn't even really relevant.



We do, it's just you don't realise how incoherent your points are to everyone else. Probably because you don't understand what you're trying to discuss.

Justice wasn't accessible in CHAZ/CHOP.

What was BLM about again? That answers my reasoning. Yes, it very much did.

How is it incoherent? In a perfectly ideal system every crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. But that's not something that is possible in the real world.

 

[Silvanus]

Why? I have no problems with pronouns.

Because, despite you going on and on about pronouns being based on bio sex, you yourself actually don't go by bio sex when you interact with trans people.

That's the definition for pronouns... l

It's *a* definition for pronouns. You don't get to decide the others don't exist, and/or expect everyone to magically know you're arbitrary excluding the others. Like I don't get to use "boy" to refer solely to servants rather than male children, and then get pissy that everyone else hasn't somehow intuited that I've decided to only accept one definition and exclude all other relevant definitions.

 

[Ag3ma]

Justice wasn't accessible in CHAZ/CHOP.

CHAZ/CHOP was not a state running a justice system. It was an occupation protest. A public demonstration. This isn't even the first time I've pointed this out.

Yes, it very much did.

Liar.

Durham report takeaways: A 'seriously flawed' Russia investigation and its lasting impact on the FBI

A 306-page report by Justice Department special counsel John Durham is refocusing negative attention on one of the most politically significant investigations in FBI history: the probe into whether Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was colluding with Russia to tip the outcome of the...

apnews.com

"And though Durham accused the FBI of confirmation bias, he did not allege that political bias or partisanship were guiding factors for the FBI’s actions."

How is it incoherent? In a perfectly ideal system every crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. But that's not something that is possible in the real world.

Resource constraints are irrelevant in a discussion of impartiality and obstruction of justice. Unless you want to provide an explanation why. Without said explanation, it's just incoherent.

 

[Asita]

Again, if that is all there is that Trump did and said, I don't see how that's being an insurrectionist. I brought up the Beastie Boys song because someone said that Trump said the word "fight" somewhere in his speech. You can generally say fight and other things like that and obviously not mean to actually physically fight.

The democrats are currently saying democracy will be over if Trump wins so if the people on the left riot the Capitol if Trump were to win because they think democracy is over, are all the democrats that said that insurrectionists then?

That would depend on context, as has been explained to you. As was also explained to you, that is not "all there is that Trump did and said". That was just a refutation of your insipid argument that Trump said peaceful in that speech as if that itself somehow invalidated the surrounding context that is the actual heart of the argument. If it had just been a case of him saying "fight" in isolation, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We're having this discussion because it did not happen in isolation.

It happened in the context of Trump throwing everything he could at the wall to try to overturn the election so he could remain in power, such as telling State Legislators to overturn the results (even after being told that they had no legal means to do so) and declaring them persona non-grata when they told him he was asking for something illegal and they wouldn't break the law for him, before then going to the air to once again claim to his base that they did have the power but refused to use it because they were RINOS who were letting the Democrats get away with murder. He heard sixty times over from the courts that his cases didn't have merit and didn't have any evidence, and yet still turned around and lied to his base that the evidence was proven to be overwhelmingly in his favor but the judges were obviously corrupt and wouldn't hear it. It happened in the context of Trump et al arrranging for fake electors to go to Congress to fraudulently say the vote was for Trump instead of Biden.

It happened in the context of Trump demanding that the Justice Department falsely announce that they'd found proof of pervasive election fraud so that they could use that statement as leverage to make States invalidate their vote count and unilaterally declare Trump the winner. It happened in the context of Team Trump demanding that Pence sow confusion on the floor of Congress and creatively count the votes and then illegally (as Pence himself had repeatedly made clear) dismiss key states that voted for Biden out of hand, thereby ending the count while Trump had more votes, and use that to illegally declare Trump the winner. It happened in the context of Trump et al calling Congressional Representatives to demand that they sow whatever chaos they could to delay the certification to buy time for them to pressure the States into overturning their own certification, so that they could then declare it to be invalid and unilaterally declare Trump the winner. The Eastman memos in particular have been rebuked as - in no uncertain terms - an instruction manual for a coup d'etat, and you might notice that the steps involved bear more than a passing resemblance to what Trump et al were attempting before, during, and after the storming of Capitol Hill.

That and more is the context in which Trump made his speech. A speech designed to incite its attendants into action, and telling them that they had the power to prevent Biden from taking office and that if they didn't use it they wouldn't have a country anymore. A speech during which the attendants were carrying weapons - which Trump allegedly dismissed as a non-concern on the stated grounds that they weren't there to hurt him, to the point that he allegedly demanded the magnetometers used to detect them removed - were chanting "Take the Capitol", "Storm the Capitol", and "Invade the Capitol" and built gallows while declaring that Pence and other members of Congress deserved to be hung as traitors. And the immediate aftermath of this speech was its attendants violently assaulted the Capitol in his name, disrupted an offical Congressional proceeding - in accordance with Trump's aforementioned goals - and caused Congress to be evacuated for its safety. In the immediate aftermath, these actions were described even by the likes of Mitch McConnell as a failed insurrection, and was later described by the FBI as an act of domestic terrorism.

During this period, Trump took advantage of the chaos to call various Representatives to tell them to make more objections to the counting of the electoral votes to try to overturn the election, with Giuliani doing much the same after the mob dispersed. To quote: "I know they're reconvening at 8 tonight, but it ... the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow – ideally until the end of tomorrow", still trying to use the attack to further their aim of breaking the law and violating the Constitution to keep Trump in power.

That's the cliffnotes version of the context that leads to the description of this as an insurrection or failed coup, which is a lot stronger of a case than you pretend.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Because, despite you going on and on about pronouns being based on bio sex, you yourself actually don't go by bio sex when you interact with trans people.



It's *a* definition for pronouns. You don't get to decide the others don't exist, and/or expect everyone to magically know you're arbitrary excluding the others. Like I don't get to use "boy" to refer solely to servants rather than male children, and then get pissy that everyone else hasn't somehow intuited that I've decided to only accept one definition and exclude all other relevant definitions.

I explained it many times, I showed The Muppets clip, that's how it's done...

Again, I can say the same about people that get upset at getting misgendered when they aren't being misgendered. You're acting like acting like using pronouns based on sex is some old-timey use of the word when it's not, majority of people use that definition.

CHAZ/CHOP was not a state running a justice system. It was an occupation protest. A public demonstration. This isn't even the first time I've pointed this out.



Liar.

Durham report takeaways: A 'seriously flawed' Russia investigation and its lasting impact on the FBI

A 306-page report by Justice Department special counsel John Durham is refocusing negative attention on one of the most politically significant investigations in FBI history: the probe into whether Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was colluding with Russia to tip the outcome of the...

apnews.com

"And though Durham accused the FBI of confirmation bias, he did not allege that political bias or partisanship were guiding factors for the FBI’s actions."



Resource constraints are irrelevant in a discussion of impartiality and obstruction of justice. Unless you want to provide an explanation why. Without said explanation, it's just incoherent.

Did the people that lived there have access to justice?

Yes, Durham argues. He notes that the FBI in 2016 also investigated allegations in the book “Clinton Cash,” authored by a conservative writer who alleged foreign governments were funneling money to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for access. Both Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate, and former President Bill Clinton have long denied any wrongdoing.

The FBI labeled its reviews linked to “Clinton Cash” as “preliminary investigations,” Durham said. But the Trump Russia probe, he said, “was immediately opened as a full investigation despite the fact that it was similarly predicated on unvetted hearsay information.”

He argues the FBI showed caution about possibly influencing Hillary Clinton’s campaign that it did not show for Trump’s campaign.

To underscore his point, he quotes some of the text messages between former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, whose privately expressed dislike for Trump has long been cited as evidence of bias.

“One more thing: (Clinton) may be our next president,” Page is said to have written Strzok. “The last thing you need (is) going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?”

I said why. The BLM riots happened as a direct result of one of them not being met. Nobody is rioting over a politician obstructing justice.

That would depend on context, as has been explained to you. As was also explained to you, that is not "all there is that Trump did and said". That was just a refutation of your insipid argument that Trump said peaceful in that speech as if that itself somehow invalidated the surrounding context that is the actual heart of the argument. If it had just been a case of him saying "fight" in isolation, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We're having this discussion because it did not happen in isolation.

It happened in the context of Trump throwing everything he could at the wall to try to overturn the election so he could remain in power, such as telling State Legislators to overturn the results (even after being told that they had no legal means to do so) and declaring them persona non-grata when they told him he was asking for something illegal and they wouldn't break the law for him, before then going to the air to once again claim to his base that they did have the power but refused to use it because they were RINOS who were letting the Democrats get away with murder. He heard sixty times over from the courts that his cases didn't have merit and didn't have any evidence, and yet still turned around and lied to his base that the evidence was proven to be overwhelmingly in his favor but the judges were obviously corrupt and wouldn't hear it. It happened in the context of Trump et al arrranging for fake electors to go to Congress to fraudulently say the vote was for Trump instead of Biden.

It happened in the context of Trump demanding that the Justice Department falsely announce that they'd found proof of pervasive election fraud so that they could use that statement as leverage to make States invalidate their vote count and unilaterally declare Trump the winner. It happened in the context of Team Trump demanding that Pence sow confusion on the floor of Congress and creatively count the votes and then illegally (as Pence himself had repeatedly made clear) dismiss key states that voted for Biden out of hand, thereby ending the count while Trump had more votes, and use that to illegally declare Trump the winner. It happened in the context of Trump et al calling Congressional Representatives to demand that they sow whatever chaos they could to delay the certification to buy time for them to pressure the States into overturning their own certification, so that they could then declare it to be invalid and unilaterally declare Trump the winner. The Eastman memos in particular have been rebuked as - in no uncertain terms - an instruction manual for a coup d'etat, and you might notice that the steps involved bear more than a passing resemblance to what Trump et al were attempting before, during, and after the storming of Capitol Hill.

That and more is the context in which Trump made his speech. A speech designed to incite its attendants into action, and telling them that they had the power to prevent Biden from taking office and that if they didn't use it they wouldn't have a country anymore. A speech during which the attendants were carrying weapons - which Trump allegedly dismissed as a non-concern on the stated grounds that they weren't there to hurt him, to the point that he allegedly demanded the magnetometers used to detect them removed - were chanting "Take the Capitol", "Storm the Capitol", and "Invade the Capitol" and built gallows while declaring that Pence and other members of Congress deserved to be hung as traitors. And the immediate aftermath of this speech was its attendants violently assaulted the Capitol in his name, disrupted an offical Congressional proceeding - in accordance with Trump's aforementioned goals - and caused Congress to be evacuated for its safety. In the immediate aftermath, these actions were described even by the likes of Mitch McConnell as a failed insurrection, and was later described by the FBI as an act of domestic terrorism.

During this period, Trump took advantage of the chaos to call various Representatives to tell them to make more objections to the counting of the electoral votes to try to overturn the election, with Giuliani doing much the same after the mob dispersed. To quote: "I know they're reconvening at 8 tonight, but it ... the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow – ideally until the end of tomorrow", still trying to use the attack to further their aim of breaking the law and violating the Constitution to keep Trump in power.

That's the cliffnotes version of the context that leads to the description of this as an insurrection or failed coup, which is a lot stronger of a case than you pretend.

If he says to be peaceful and stuff in the same speech he's using a word like "fight", you can't take him saying fight as physically fighting. Even if he did just say fight standalone, that's pretty weak still. People say you need to fight for things all the time and don't mean to physically fight.

From what you said, I'd say there's more a case for insurrection with all the attempts he made to change the vote than what happened on Jan 6th. You actually have to get people (regardless of who) on something actually legit, you can't bend the law because you just don't like someone and they "deserve" it. I think Trump is a horrible person but you can't just force him off the ballot because of that. We will see if Trump actually did anything that merits him being considered an insurrection but just in the view of Jan 6th alone, I'm pretty sure there's nothing you can get him on.

 

[Silvanus]

I explained it many times, I showed The Muppets clip, that's how it's done...

Surprise surprise: repeating something over and over again doesn't make inconsistencies or issues disappear!

Again, I can say the same about people that get upset at getting misgendered when they aren't being misgendered. You're acting like acting like using pronouns based on sex is some old-timey use of the word when it's not, majority of people use that definition.

Nope, the timeliness of the definition doesn't make a difference. You don't get to unilaterally decide that some definitions count and others don't, and assume others will somehow intuit that you're using one and excluding others.

 

[Asita]

If he says to be peaceful and stuff in the same speech he's using a word like "fight", you can't take him saying fight as physically fighting. Even if he did just say fight standalone, that's pretty weak still. People say you need to fight for things all the time and don't mean to physically fight.

From what you said, I'd say there's more a case for insurrection with all the attempts he made to change the vote than what happened on Jan 6th. You actually have to get people (regardless of who) on something actually legit, you can't bend the law because you just don't like someone and they "deserve" it. I think Trump is a horrible person but you can't just force him off the ballot because of that. We will see if Trump actually did anything that merits him being considered an insurrection but just in the view of Jan 6th alone, I'm pretty sure there's nothing you can get him on.

And once again you completely ignore the surrounding context to make it look as if the problem was the simple use of the word "fight", in and of itself, in isolation. Once again: This did not occur in isolation. What makes it damning is how it fits into the broader pattern, including the attack on the Capitol. What I listed out there were not unrelated and isolated incidents, they were a nonexhaustive list showing the buildup, the efforts to inflame his followers and stoke their feelings of resentment towards people who weren't breaking the law for Trump, the explicitly championed strategies that inform both means and motive and make it clear that legitimacy or legality wasn't a concern so long as they accomplished their goal, and finally both the passive endorsement of and active efforts to use the assault on the Capitol to advance that goal. That speaks a lot more to the intent of the speech than the fact that Trump said peace one time during his hour long speech that otherwise tried to stoke the attendants anger and convince them that if they didn't take this chance to act and force Congress to flip the vote to him they "wouldn't have a country anymore".

I mean for fuck's sake, have you actually read the Eastman memos? The damn things make no bones about the fact that the fake electors they were arranging to send to Congress were intended only to provide a veneer of legitimacy if the States played ball and give Pence a pretext to declare the legitimate electors invalid if the States did not play ball. And this is a strategy they were actively trying to push forward with, to the point during the attack Pence's aide got an email from Eastman declaring that the violence was Pence's fault for not playing ball and blocking the certification to enable the illusion of a Trump victory. That in itself says quite a bit about how team Trump had few qualms about using the violence to try and push an illegal agenda, as do the aforementioned calls to Congressmen by Trump and Bannon during and after the assault. But you want to turn around and pretend that none of that matters and that this amounts to "bending the law because you just don't like someone and they 'deserve' it"? Bruh.

It's not "in the view of January 6th alone" (with the context of your argument further implying that the scope of what you mean by"January 6" is limited to Trump's speech alone). Trump's speech on January 6th is not "alone". It is just where it all came to a head and resulted in a violent attack on the Capitol with the aim of illegally disrupting the transfer of power in order to keep Trump in office. It's that January 6 (the whole of it, including the assault on the Capitol and efforts to leverage it for Trump's political benefit) was the result of organized efforts by Donald Trump and his allies to get Congress to illegally halt the certification of the election so he could remain in power. You cannot separate it from the surrounding context any more than you can separate the Monteagle letter from the Gunpowder Plot because you want to argue that its warning not to attend Parliament didn't explicitly mention the assassination attempt and therefore it could have been about the Plague instead of the bomb and therefore should not be treated as incriminating. Context is vitally important. You cannot just pretend that it doesn't exist.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Surprise surprise: repeating something over and over again doesn't make inconsistencies or issues disappear!



Nope, the timeliness of the definition doesn't make a difference. You don't get to unilaterally decide that some definitions count and others don't, and assume others will somehow intuit that you're using one and excluding others.

What inconsistencies if I never changed my stance? You seem to just not like how people do pronouns.

I get to unilaterally decide how I use words. If there are 2 definitions of a word and they contradict each other, you must choose one of them. You are trying to unilaterally tell the rest of us how to use words, I am not telling anyone how to use words. I'm saying people can use either definition and it's up to them, you're the one trying to dictate to people.

And once again you completely ignore the surrounding context to make it look as if the problem was the simple use of the word "fight", in and of itself, in isolation. Once again: This did not occur in isolation. What makes it damning is how it fits into the broader pattern, including the attack on the Capitol. What I listed out there were not unrelated and isolated incidents, they were a nonexhaustive list showing the buildup, the efforts to inflame his followers and stoke their feelings of resentment towards people who weren't breaking the law for Trump, the explicitly championed strategies that inform both means and motive and make it clear that legitimacy or legality wasn't a concern so long as they accomplished their goal, and finally both the passive endorsement of and active efforts to use the assault on the Capitol to advance that goal. That speaks a lot more to the intent of the speech than the fact that Trump said peace one time during his hour long speech that otherwise tried to stoke the attendants anger and convince them that if they didn't take this chance to act and force Congress to flip the vote to him they "wouldn't have a country anymore".

I mean for fuck's sake, have you actually read the Eastman memos? The damn things make no bones about the fact that the fake electors they were arranging to send to Congress were intended only to provide a veneer of legitimacy if the States played ball and give Pence a pretext to declare the legitimate electors invalid if the States did not play ball. And this is a strategy they were actively trying to push forward with, to the point during the attack Pence's aide got an email from Eastman declaring that the violence was Pence's fault for not playing ball and blocking the certification to enable the illusion of a Trump victory. That in itself says quite a bit about how team Trump had few qualms about using the violence to try and push an illegal agenda, as do the aforementioned calls to Congressmen by Trump and Bannon during and after the assault. But you want to turn around and pretend that none of that matters and that this amounts to "bending the law because you just don't like someone and they 'deserve' it"? Bruh.

It's not "in the view of January 6th alone" (with the context of your argument further implying that the scope of what you mean by"January 6" is limited to Trump's speech alone). Trump's speech on January 6th is not "alone". It is just where it all came to a head and resulted in a violent attack on the Capitol with the aim of illegally disrupting the transfer of power in order to keep Trump in office. It's that January 6 (the whole of it, including the assault on the Capitol and efforts to leverage it for Trump's political benefit) was the result of organized efforts by Donald Trump and his allies to get Congress to illegally halt the certification of the election so he could remain in power. You cannot separate it from the surrounding context any more than you can separate the Monteagle letter from the Gunpowder Plot because you want to argue that its warning not to attend Parliament didn't explicitly mention the assassination attempt and therefore it could have been about the Plague instead of the bomb and therefore should not be treated as incriminating. Context is vitally important. You cannot just pretend that it doesn't exist.

There's a difference between stuff being connected and stuff being connected in a legal sense. If Trump is going to found as an insurrectionist, it's not going to be because of Jan 6th. The other stuff about fake electors and all that stuff I could see potentially being a solid legal argument. Again, if Trump were to win this year and the left attacks the Capitol in the same fashion because of all the Trump Russia-collusion that was pushed for like 3 years (and many of the left still think that happened) along with the democrats saying this election is to save democracy, all the people that were part of that rhetoric that contributed to the event would not be considered insurrectionists. It would be anyone that directly helped and supported the violence and that would be all. If someone committed murder based on a lie (say they were told their SO cheated) and they kill their SO, the person that said the SO cheated would not be accessory to murder.

 

[Silvanus]

What inconsistencies if I never changed my stance? You seem to just not like how people do pronouns.

You've frequently shifted between 'based on sex, no exceptions' and 'based on appearance, including if that differs from bio sex'.

I get to unilaterally decide how I use words. If there are 2 definitions of a word and they contradict each other, you must choose one of them.

No, that's not how language works, and its also not how you've approached it. You've said already that you go by sex... except for various exceptions when you go by appearance if it corresponds with gender but not sex. You haven't chosen one of them.

But I digress. Words having multiple definitions isn't a 'contradiction'. That's how a lot of words work.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You've frequently shifted between 'based on sex, no exceptions' and 'based on appearance, including if that differs from bio sex'.



No, that's not how language works, and its also not how you've approached it. You've said already that you go by sex... except for various exceptions when you go by appearance if it corresponds with gender but not sex. You haven't chosen one of them.

But I digress. Words having multiple definitions isn't a 'contradiction'. That's how a lot of words work.

Again, how do you think people are determining sex in the real world? By checking genitals or blood sample to test chromosomes? It's obviously based on appearance.

Most people use pronouns based on sex. And that's how language works, people agree on what words mean. You and others are pushing to change what the majority wants and currently uses pronouns. It's not the other way around as you are trying to claim.

 

[Silvanus]

Again, how do you think people are determining sex in the real world? By checking genitals or blood sample to test chromosomes? It's obviously based on appearance.

And again, you've said you'll base it on appearance *in situations where you know the bio sex differs*. So you're not using it as a shorthand for bio sex. Sometimes. But at other times you'll insist bio sex is the only way, no exceptions.

Most people use pronouns based on sex. And that's how language works, people agree on what words mean.

So you genuinely believe that if a word has multiple definitions, we have to pick one and disregard all others?

Take the word "block". Definitions include a slab/chunk; the act of getting in something else's way; and the rehearsal of the physical movements of a play. So according to you, we have to pick a single one and then can't use the others. Right?

 

[Ag3ma]

Yes, Durham argues...

Impartiality is an expectation that people who oversee the law do not bring in personal biases, prejudices, conflicts of interest, etc. However, that is clearly distinct from an error that causes a difference in outcome. For instance, the police accidentally losing a key piece of evidence for a trial that leads to an acquittal, where an equivalent case would secure a conviction with that evidence, is not a problem with "impartiality".

And that what we're talking about here, because as Durham clearly concludes, there is no case made that undue political or personal bias affected the FBI's decision to investigate Trump. They just made a poor judgement.

I said why. The BLM riots happened as a direct result of one of them not being met. Nobody is rioting over a politician obstructing justice.

Honestly I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Most crimes don't inspire riots: that's no grounds to say that those crimes are not serious and dangerous.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And again, you've said you'll base it on appearance *in situations where you know the bio sex differs*. So you're not using it as a shorthand for bio sex. Sometimes. But at other times you'll insist bio sex is the only way, no exceptions.



So you genuinely believe that if a word has multiple definitions, we have to pick one and disregard all others?

Take the word "block". Definitions include a slab/chunk; the act of getting in something else's way; and the rehearsal of the physical movements of a play. So according to you, we have to pick a single one and then can't use the others. Right?

I go by what my automatic response is for a pronoun. If the person looks enough like the other sex (through physical changes), I'll instinctively you the pronoun associated with that sex. Hence why I initially brought up Miss Doubtfire. Then you go and change it into the fact that it's a deception, which didn't matter in the point I was making. For example, I will never refer to someone KNOWN as they (since you'll in bad faith being up referring to an unknown person as they).

If there are definitions that are contrary to each other for the same word for the same purpose, then yes. Cup is a cup for drinking or for protection (down below) and based on the context, you know what definition is being used. You can't use both definitions for cup for the same thing because each definition is referring to something different.

Impartiality is an expectation that people who oversee the law do not bring in personal biases, prejudices, conflicts of interest, etc. However, that is clearly distinct from an error that causes a difference in outcome. For instance, the police accidentally losing a key piece of evidence for a trial that leads to an acquittal, where an equivalent case would secure a conviction with that evidence, is not a problem with "impartiality".

And that what we're talking about here, because as Durham clearly concludes, there is no case made that undue political or personal bias affected the FBI's decision to investigate Trump. They just made a poor judgement.



Honestly I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Most crimes don't inspire riots: that's no grounds to say that those crimes are not serious and dangerous.

He cites actual evidence of people being bias against Trump. An AG in New York iirc ran on a platform to go after Trump, compete impartiality there...

BLM was about people being upset cops aren't impartial to who they go after. You don't have riots over a politician obstructing justice. Hence impartiality is more important than obstruction.