A few thoughts about January 6, 2021

[BrawlMan]

....are you fucking serious? That's the most ridiculous defense I've heard, which makes sense that it's coming from someone defending the insurrectionists.

That's like saying "Well hey I believed that the person I was sitting next to on the bus actually WAS a child murderer, so hey, my act of stabbing them to death is totally a defense against me being guilty of killing them"

or, from real world events in fucking crazy ass republican-verse. "I honestly, and truly believe there is a child sex dungeon under a bowling alley/pizza shop (that doesn't even have a basement), so me going in there with a gun is a perfectly valid act, and not at ALL a crime in any way! Because it's what I BELIEVED!!" This is insane thinking, something the conservatives have been cultivating for years. The fact that you BELIEVE something is X, doesn't make it X, and it doesn't justify you taking an action that is against the law, simply because of your belief.

Your party is living in a fantasy realm of their own making. Their distrust in the election system, something you pushed really hard as justification for them rising up against the government, has been entirely motivated by their own fucking party TELLING them (without any actual evidence) that it's rigged. It's this incestuous, recursive loop of the conservative mouthpieces "asking questions" and feeding the doubt to their flock, then when the idiots start rambling about a stolen election, the politicians turn and point to their base, (that they stirred up into the frenzy in the first place) and say "see, we're just representing their concerns! So it's totally legit!" Ignoring THEY are the ones that have been feeding them those concerns in the first place.
But when they are actually in front of a fucking judge, and have to actually account for what they say in a court of law, and provide evidence, every one of them, has backpedeled so fucking hard, from officially declaring, on record, that they are declaring voter fraud, that they are probably reversing time. The other times they have tried to present anything, the briefs and information have been complete BS, poorly written, citing absolute garbage, so bad that the judges have had to just throw the shit out, as if it was written by a 10 year old, and not someone who supposedly passed the bar, and knows how to fucking law.

Give me a fucking break.

Thank you!

 

[tstorm823]

And yet despite the huge disparity in the closeness of these elections, even though the Republicans have won the popular vote just once since 1988, it is Trump's defeat that set off a vastly larger and more forceful accusation of electoral fraud.

Let's not skip over the sudden drastic changes in election procedures to operate through a pandemic, the 3 years of investigation of the previous election, and the insistence of the Democratic Party and the media (but I repeat myself) that in spite of extreme circumstances and in contrast to the circuses that took place in the elections both immediately before and immediately after the 2020 general election, that one was the most perfect of all elections in history and any questions about potential fraud or the fairness of the rules are insane conspiracy theories.

Trump didn't help, but of the things I think we can agree on about Trump, the man is not a visionary. He may lead at times, but it's always in a direction that he's taken from somebody else. The doubt in the election came from years of media gaslighting hitting a climax, and Trump just cashed in on that.

Side note: it's delightful to me how many people here thoroughly demonstrated that they have no standards of behavior, and the acceptability of a political tactic is dependent on whether the "good guys" or "bad guys" are using it at the time.

 

[gorfias]

....are you fucking serious? That's the most ridiculous defense I've heard, which makes sense that it's coming from someone defending the insurrectionists.

That's like saying "Well hey I believed that the person I was sitting next to on the bus actually WAS a child murderer, so hey, my act of stabbing them to death is totally a defense against me being guilty of killing them"

or, from real world events in fucking crazy ass republican-verse. "I honestly, and truly believe there is a child sex dungeon under a bowling alley/pizza shop (that doesn't even have a basement), so me going in there with a gun is a perfectly valid act, and not at ALL a crime in any way! Because it's what I BELIEVED!!" This is insane thinking, something the conservatives have been cultivating for years. The fact that you BELIEVE something is X, doesn't make it X, and it doesn't justify you taking an action that is against the law, simply because of your belief.

Your party is living in a fantasy realm of their own making. Their distrust in the election system, something you pushed really hard as justification for them rising up against the government, has been entirely motivated by their own fucking party TELLING them (without any actual evidence) that it's rigged. It's this incestuous, recursive loop of the conservative mouthpieces "asking questions" and feeding the doubt to their flock, then when the idiots start rambling about a stolen election, the politicians turn and point to their base, (that they stirred up into the frenzy in the first place) and say "see, we're just representing their concerns! So it's totally legit!" Ignoring THEY are the ones that have been feeding them those concerns in the first place.
But when they are actually in front of a fucking judge, and have to actually account for what they say in a court of law, and provide evidence, every one of them, has backpedeled so fucking hard, from officially declaring, on record, that they are declaring voter fraud, that they are probably reversing time. The other times they have tried to present anything, the briefs and information have been complete BS, poorly written, citing absolute garbage, so bad that the judges have had to just throw the shit out, as if it was written by a 10 year old, and not someone who supposedly passed the bar, and knows how to fucking law.

Give me a fucking break.

LOL. Your post reminds me of a real world case. A woman intentionally crashes her car into a bus because... real case now... she believes she is Batman and in so doing, she is saving the world. She is found not-guilty of criminal charges against her due to insanity.

EDIT: ITMT, since Hinkley was found not guilty due to insanity of attempted murder of Ronald Reagan, there is a new charge called, "Guilty but mentally ill.'

Thank you!

You really shouldn't applaud such a display of "know nothingism".

 

[Buyetyen]

LOL. Your post reminds me of a real world case. A woman intentionally crashes her car into a bus because... real case now... she believes she is Batman and in so doing, she is saving the world. She is found not-guilty of criminal charges against her due to insanity.

EDIT: ITMT, since Hinkley was found not guilty due to insanity of attempted murder of Ronald Reagan, there is a new charge called, "Guilty but mentally ill.'

For an insanity defense to work, the defendant's legal team has to demonstrate that their client was not in full cognitive control of their actions. Good luck arguing that for the capital riot traitors.

 

[Silvanus]

Some of what you write is why a Texas case was thrown out for lack of standing. In this case, as a matter of procedure, where a State to violates it's own laws in ways that impact the Federal government I would think the Fed has standing to disregard that state. If, for instance, the Arizona electors were the result of lawlessness, the Federal government would have the lawful right to reject those electors.

OK, but surely its a far more egregious contravention of the constitution (and of the very principle of democracy) to disenfranchise an entire state than it is to extend a registration deadline.

Yet that's what Sidney Powell demanded. And now we know that Trump requested it too: "Just say we won".

 

[gorfias]

OK, but surely its a far more egregious contravention of the constitution (and of the very principle of democracy) to disenfranchise an entire state than it is to extend a registration deadline.

Yet that's what Sidney Powell demanded. And now we know that Trump requested it too: "Just say we won".

I don't think so but I've had some more time to think about the issue.
We're advised that to stop the destruction of the US, we need focus on the local level. It isn't enough to vote for POTUS and think you're done. It isn't POTUS, for instance, that is teaching white kids to hate themselves and their country, with lies, etc. Given that, maybe it is very dangerous to give the Fed a pass on rejecting the apparent will of the states... so, even if you are wrong... I think I support your position.

 

[Agema]

Let's not skip over the sudden drastic changes in election procedures to operate through a pandemic, the 3 years of investigation of the previous election, and the insistence of the Democratic Party and the media (but I repeat myself) that in spite of extreme circumstances and in contrast to the circuses that took place in the elections both immediately before and immediately after the 2020 general election, that one was the most perfect of all elections in history and any questions about potential fraud or the fairness of the rules are insane conspiracy theories.

There are questions still worth asking about the extent to which Trump may have won the election with the assistance of one of the USA's enemies, and there are always perpetual questions about improvements in electoral practice. But these are not "fraud". Trump still won 2016, and the Democrats (upset though they may have been) basically accepted that.

In fact, the most prominent claim of fraud in 2016 was from... Donald Trump. Trump is so insecure he couldn't even accept losing the popular vote. So he made outrageous and unproven claims, and created a commission to investigate it (nothing found) and otherwise nudged state officials to look into it. Remembering this is also a man who thought the Emmy's were rigged when he was a TV personality, and blamed pretty much every business loss he ever had on some kind of cheating.

Trump didn't help, but of the things I think we can agree on about Trump, the man is not a visionary. He may lead at times, but it's always in a direction that he's taken from somebody else. The doubt in the election came from years of media gaslighting hitting a climax, and Trump just cashed in on that.

I am so bored shitless with your pathetic and dishonest attempts to exculpate Trump by pretending he doesn't have agency. Some degree of election discontent existed to some degree for decades, but no-one ever blew it up so aggressively and dishonestly like Trump did: that was Trump's choice and Trump's agency, done to cover his crippling insecurity that he could be a loser. Your sophistry here is to claim that because someone can have an inspiration, they didn't make the decision and take the action that they did. It's like arguing that if Nirvana were inspired by the Pixies, then they didn't write the album Nevermind and deserve no credit for it. An argument so crass that you should be embarrassed to have written it.

Side note: it's delightful to me how many people here thoroughly demonstrated that they have no standards of behavior, and the acceptability of a political tactic is dependent on whether the "good guys" or "bad guys" are using it at the time.

Firstly, at best you are throwing stones in a glass house here. We sit here whilst you whinge about Democrats this and Democrats that, but you plainly do not hold Republicans to the same standards. You don't hold Trump to any meaningful standard at all: he could murder your mother and you'd be finding a way to argue it wasn't really his fault.

Secondly, I don't waste much time on the futility of complaining that at least some people are guaranteed to believe things that are stupid, insane, absurd, outrageous and illogical. I care much more about an "institutional" level. Thus in 2000 and 2016, irrespective of some individuals, bitterness and bad grace, intitutionally the Democrats accepted their defeats. This is a world away from a president that would deliberately manufacture a dishonest campaign of election fraud in utter contravention of the facts, then attempt to persuade officials to overturn the election through undemocratic channels, and when that didn't work, sic a mob on democratic representatives. (Plus threaten, bribe and pressurise his party into protecting him from the consequences.) If you can't see that, then god help you because you are as hopelessly lost.

 

[BrawlMan]

LOL. Your post reminds me of a real world case. A woman intentionally crashes her car into a bus because... real case now... she believes she is Batman and in so doing, she is saving the world. She is found not-guilty of criminal charges against her due to insanity.

EDIT: ITMT, since Hinkley was found not guilty due to insanity of attempted murder of Ronald Reagan, there is a new charge called, "Guilty but mentally ill.'



You really shouldn't applaud such a display of "know nothingism".

​

 

[CM156]

LOL. Your post reminds me of a real world case. A woman intentionally crashes her car into a bus because... real case now... she believes she is Batman and in so doing, she is saving the world. She is found not-guilty of criminal charges against her due to insanity.

EDIT: ITMT, since Hinkley was found not guilty due to insanity of attempted murder of Ronald Reagan, there is a new charge called, "Guilty but mentally ill.'



You really shouldn't applaud such a display of "know nothingism".

Insanity defenses are one of the most frequently misunderstood legal topics by laypeople.

 

[gorfias]

Insanity defenses are one of the most frequently misunderstood legal topics by laypeople.

Another difficult to grasp idea I've heard about is that you cannot charge someone with a crime if what you were doing is impossible. (example: Say you pull on a tree branch, trying to tug it, and the rest of the world, into your pocket in order to steal it. This would not be a theft action as you're not going to be able to do it that way). The trespassers, even if they were trying to commit insurrection... could they have?

 

[CM156]

Another difficult to grasp idea I've heard about is that you cannot charge someone with a crime if what you were doing is impossible. (example: Say you pull on a tree branch, trying to tug it, and the rest of the world, into your pocket in order to steal it. This would not be a theft action as you're not going to be able to do it that way). The trespassers, even if they were trying to commit insurrection... could they have?

Your understanding of the impossibility defense is incomplete. I rarely use Wikipedia as a primer for such things, but here you go.

"Legal impossibility can be distinguished from factual impossibility, which is not generally a defence at common law. Factual impossibility involves an error as to factual reality (the state of the world) that causes the actor to fail to commit a criminal offence when, if the circumstances were as the actor believed, the offence would have been committed. Legal impossibility involves an error as to a legal reality (the state of the law). "


In my personal opinion, factual impossibility as a defense will not work for any Jan 6 person who tries it.

 

[Buyetyen]

It isn't POTUS, for instance, that is teaching white kids to hate themselves and their country, with lies, etc.

Nobody is, so it's okay.

 

[gorfias]

Your understanding of the impossibility defense is incomplete. I rarely use Wikipedia as a primer for such things, but here you go.

"Legal impossibility can be distinguished from factual impossibility, which is not generally a defence at common law. Factual impossibility involves an error as to factual reality (the state of the world) that causes the actor to fail to commit a criminal offence when, if the circumstances were as the actor believed, the offence would have been committed. Legal impossibility involves an error as to a legal reality (the state of the law). "


In my personal opinion, factual impossibility as a defense will not work for any Jan 6 person who tries it.

Wow, even more confusing than I thought. Thanks!
1st time I heard of it was a summary of a Holmes case. Guy shoots what he thinks is his intended victim in the head but it is actually just a statue obscured by shadows. Holmes says the guy won't be convicted as it is impossible to kill another human by shooting a statue.
Your link sites a similar instance:
"it is not always easy to identify whether an actor made a legal and factual mistake. In State v. Guffey (1953), the defendant shot a stuffed deer, thinking it was alive and was convicted for attempt to kill a protected animal out of season. In a highly debated reversal, an appellate judge threw out the conviction on the basis of legal impossibility, concluding that it is no crime to shoot a stuffed deer out of season. "


Maybe the trespassers thought they simply engaged in a peaceful protest? Some are claiming they were invited into the capital building. I think they'd be guilty of trespass whether they knew they were or not. They'd certainly have to pay for any damages caused by the trespass, whether intentional or not.

 

[Agema]

Maybe the trespassers thought they simply engaged in a peaceful protest? Some are claiming they were invited into the capital building. I think they'd be guilty of trespass whether they knew they were or not. They'd certainly have to pay for any damages caused by the trespass, whether intentional or not.

If they were invited, they should be able to provide their invites - a letter or email from a relevant member of Congress asking to meet them, or whatever.

After that, particularly having witnessed a mob assault police trying to stop them entering, no-one can reasonably think a) the protest is peaceful and b) they're supposed to be in the building.

Finally, given the mission of the gathering in Washington was to oppose Congress certifying the election, we have a clear idea of intent. A peaceful protest, or one safely away from the Capitol could be passed off as a statement of objection or mere persuasion. However, once there has been violent invasion of the Capitol then that is overtly threatening - "Hang Mike Pence", no less - and coercive.

As a final note, let's remember that mobs are not known for restraint. It was allegedly supposed to be peaceful protest in the first place, and ended up assaulting the police and invading the building. You imagine what could have happened if people with their blood up actually got hold of certain Representatives and Senators they believe are traitors: there could very easily have been murders.

 

[tstorm823]

Thus in 2000 and 2016, irrespective of some individuals, bitterness and bad grace, intitutionally the Democrats accepted their defeats.

The one's who petitioned to have the electors flip sides away from those they represent, who objected to the appointed, who made committees to impeach Trump from day 1 of his term, who coined the term "not my president" and held rallies about it for months, who blockaded anything Trump wanted legislatively as much as they could... give me a break. If you don't care when Democrats act badly, that's your prerogative, but don't lie about history.

 

[Agema]

The one's who petitioned to have the electors flip sides away from those they represent, who objected to the appointed, who made committees to impeach Trump from day 1 of his term, who coined the term "not my president" and held rallies about it for months, who blockaded anything Trump wanted legislatively as much as they could... give me a break. If you don't care when Democrats act badly, that's your prerogative, but don't lie about history.

And how effective was that lone arsehole?

Did he persuade 70% of his party including that the election was fraudulent, did any of his bullshit stick, did he have the power and influence to drive his party to back him, and did he whip up a mob to storm the Capitol? No?

Well then, jog on.

 

[Hades]

The one's who petitioned to have the electors flip sides away from those they represent, who objected to the appointed, who made committees to impeach Trump from day 1 of his term, who coined the term "not my president" and held rallies about it for months, who blockaded anything Trump wanted legislatively as much as they could... give me a break. If you don't care when Democrats act badly, that's your prerogative, but don't lie about history.

Its worth noting that ''not my president'' does not mean the same as ''not THE president''. And its not like Trump ever had much interest in reaching across the isle and compromising with the Democrats. Its not like Obama who neutered his own healthcare bill to appease Republicans only to have the Republicans still reject it with a borderline fanatic zeal. There are leaders who try their best but who are not accepted by their legislative body and get blocked as a result, but Trump is not one of those. Trump himself refused to work with congress.

As for the topic of electors. Its just not the same. Firstly because I don't think anyone genuinely expected faithless electors would block Trump from taking office, which is quite different from the mass delusions Trump fans have embraced. But there also was a legitimate case for the electors to reject Trump. Among the functions of the electoral college is to avoid mob rule, to block out leaders who are utterly unqualified from holding office, to prevent a ''Caesar''. That this system instead forced Trump on America after the electorate rejected him is one of histories little ironies, but its not unreasonable to consider that Trump lacked any and all qualification to be president, that he had neither the public mandate, practical political experience, devotion to democracy, base competence and possible not even the required sanity to be president. It was always out of the question that this would happen but any elector who'd be faithless could very, very easily justify his actions. Because Trump is not just a bad presidential candidate or one people disagree with. He's someone who from the very beginning was obviously unqualified for the job and just so obviously too corrupt to hold it.

 

[Hades]

In fact, the most prominent claim of fraud in 2016 was from... Donald Trump. Trump is so insecure he couldn't even accept losing the popular vote.

I think there's a bit more to it than that. Its not just that Trump is insecure but also that losing the popular vote and getting installed on a technicality is a complete rejection to Trump's ideology(or the one he pretends to have). The outcome immensely benefited Trump but its also a little embarrassing for a ''man of the people''.

Among the core aspects of the demagogic ''ideology'' isn't just that they are the candidate who bests represents ''the people'', but that they are in fact the ONLY candidate who represents ''the people'' and that every other politician or faction is an enemy of ''the people'' who's only out to oppress them. The conflict between the elites and ''the people'' is the central theme of these demagogues. In the ideology of Trumpism(or the one it claims to have) Trump is the champion of the people and he's going to fight ''the swamp'' which has opposed ''the people'' for decades. Its the same with Le Pen, Wilders, Bolsonaro and others. All are representatives of the true people who are going to take back their nations from the establishment and finally put someone in office who's there for ''the people''.

In this framework it because very embarrassing when the ''champion of the people'' proves to be less popular than some cold technocrat and only got installed as president through the technocratic rules he and his base hate so much.

 

[gorfias]

If they were invited, they should be able to provide their invites - a letter or email from a relevant member of Congress asking to meet them, or whatever.

After that, particularly having witnessed a mob assault police trying to stop them entering, no-one can reasonably think a) the protest is peaceful and b) they're supposed to be in the building.

Finally, given the mission of the gathering in Washington was to oppose Congress certifying the election, we have a clear idea of intent. A peaceful protest, or one safely away from the Capitol could be passed off as a statement of objection or mere persuasion. However, once there has been violent invasion of the Capitol then that is overtly threatening - "Hang Mike Pence", no less - and coercive.

As a final note, let's remember that mobs are not known for restraint. It was allegedly supposed to be peaceful protest in the first place, and ended up assaulting the police and invading the building. You imagine what could have happened if people with their blood up actually got hold of certain Representatives and Senators they believe are traitors: there could very easily have been murders.

From what I've seen, Trump's speeches fall well within protected parameters. I understand Nancy Pelosi herself was responsible for Capital security, knew of this gathering but did not appropriately fortify the building. There are un indited co-conspirators I think may well be FBI that may have entrapped some of the trespassers.

If you really want to go into conspiracy land, some are arguing the latest suicide of a capital policeman may have been murder as he might have had testimony counter to the narrative that this was worse than 9/11! (OK, even I am not on board with that one... but it is out there).

My concern is that at all times, the Left may have wanted this to happen to give them something to talk about and further demonize the political opponents. I have to hope we're almost done with this so we can get on to the work of fixing our country.

I think there's a bit more to it than that. Its not just that Trump is insecure but also that losing the popular vote and getting installed on a technicality is a complete rejection to Trump's ideology(or the one he pretends to have). The outcome immensely benefited Trump but its also a little embarrassing for a ''man of the people''.

Among the core aspects of the demagogic ''ideology'' isn't just that they are the candidate who bests represents ''the people'', but that they are in fact the ONLY candidate who represents ''the people'' and that every other politician or faction is an enemy of ''the people'' who's only out to oppress them. The conflict between the elites and ''the people'' is the central theme of these demagogues. In the ideology of Trumpism(or the one it claims to have) Trump is the champion of the people and he's going to fight ''the swamp'' which has opposed ''the people'' for decades. Its the same with Le Pen, Wilders, Bolsonaro and others. All are representatives of the true people who are going to take back their nations from the establishment and finally put someone in office who's there for ''the people''.

In this framework it because very embarrassing when the ''champion of the people'' proves to be less popular than some cold technocrat and only got installed as president through the technocratic rules he and his base hate so much.

I have heard it posited that HRC stole votes... but unlike 2020, she didn't realize how many she actually needed to steal. It was asked why she had a fleet of lawyers ready to challenge election results but used none. The theory was, in doing such a challenge, the illegitacy of her vote would be exposed, costing her even her participation prize.

I just know that populists need to start getting active locally. You can't just vote for POTUS and think your work is done.

 

[Hades]

My concern is that at all times, the Left may have wanted this to happen to give them something to talk about and further demonize the political opponents. I have to hope we're almost done with this so we can get on to the work of fixing our country.

Lets for the same of argument assume its true. Lets humor you.

Lets pretend the Democrats wanted Trump to try and overthrow the election and send a mob at congress. If this is so then why on earth would Trump give them that? Why would he willingly give them a weapon to use against him and cripple the credibility of the Republican party?