An insurrection requires intelligence

[Catsnmeters]

Juries are easily swayed by lawyers who have a lifetime of learning how to lie.

Your mistrust of the system is not a legitimate legal defense form those who were convicted.

If that were the standard then ALL convictions would be pointless.

Being told or believing there was voter fraud does totally excuse breaking the law because it makes them feel like the victim of the real crime.

Wait...you are trying to say that actually believing their was voter fraud makes you immune to criminal behavior?

Banks are required to keep detailed accounts that very rarely allow for bank fraud.

Yes.

If I believed that despite those details, the bank was fraudulently using my account, can I legally attempt to rob them? Yes or no?

In contrast, voting seems designed to facilitate voter fraud.
Like whose bright idea was it to use easily hacked computers as voting machines?

They are not easily hacked. Their is no proof they were hacked. Fox payed millions because they lied about voting machines being hacked.

Not a single court could ever have ruled that there was no voter fraud because there was never an official investigation, and only that would have access to the necessary resources.

There were a plethora of investigations.

How could you not know that?

But just like in FL in 2000, the courts ruled instead that it was just too late.

This was not the 2000 election.

 

[Rigby5]

Perhaps, but there are lawyers on both sides in a criminal trial, and most of the convicted confessed, and others were convicted of various specific crimes. Very few convicted of “seditious conspiracy.” Seditious conspiracy would apply mainly to organizers. It is a perfect fit, in my view, for Trump himself. Much better than “insurrection,” which I personally never thought was appropriate.

Not having heard the testimony, there is no way for me to be sure there was not a deliberate seditious intent, but it seems highly unlikely.
What could anyone possibly have gained by it?
If Pence had not certified the election, that would not have benefitted anyone in any way.
Trump would still have been out when his term end, regardless.
There is no way to keep Trump on office once is term was over
A second term requires a new inauguration.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Not having heard the testimony, there is no way for me to be sure there was not a deliberate seditious intent, but it seems highly unlikely.
What could anyone possibly have gained by it?
If Pence had not certified the election, that would not have benefitted anyone in any way.
Trump would still have been out when his term end, regardless.
There is no way to keep Trump on office once is term was over
A second term requires a new inauguration.

You seem intentionally to be acting dumb. But then I forget. I know you from many posts on many subjects, and you always act that way.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Wrong.
If a woman falsely claims rape and the accused gets lynched, the main criminal would be the woman.

False equivalence.

Lynching is not as criminal of intent as the false accusation.
But breaking windows is trivial in comparison.

People were not convicted of seditious conspiracy for breaking windows.

 

[Rigby5]

Your mistrust of the system is not a legitimate legal defense form those who were convicted.

If that were the standard then ALL convictions would be pointless.



Wait...you are trying to say that actually believing their was voter fraud makes you immune to criminal behavior?



Yes.

If I believed that despite those details, the bank was fraudulently using my account, can I legally attempt to rob them? Yes or no?



They are not easily hacked. Their is no proof they were hacked. Fox payed millions because they lied about voting machines being hacked.



There were a plethora of investigations.

How could you not know that?


This was not the 2000 election.

Yes, my legitimate distrust of the legal system IS a valid legal defense of those who were convicted.
To be convicted of a crime requires there to be criminal intent, not just a mistake. So the jury was likely badly instructed.
I have been on half a dozen juries, and they were all terrible because the prosecutors lied and the naive jury believed them.
The prosecutors basically claimed that the jurors had to convict is the evidence was 51% in favor of guilt, and that was an outright lie.
The standard is overwhelming preponderance, beyond any reasonable doubt, which actually implies something like 98%.
We have one of the worst legal systems in the whole world, with the largest % imprisoned.
And it is obvious, since things like Dred Scott, Prohibition, the War on Drugs, etc., are all obviously illegal.

And YES, if they actually believed there was voter fraud, then their actions not only were legal, but patriotic and to be celebrated.

If you spent a month trying to determine if your bank was robbing you are not, and the bank and all banking officials refused to investigate, then YES, of course then you ARE obligated to rob the bank. It is the bank and the banking officials who have the legal obligation to prove to you otherwise. If they refuse, then they are part of the illegal conspiracy.

And by the way, anyone who askes for a "yes" or "no" answer is an automatic liar because there actually is no question where that is appropriate. Only lawyers try to lie like that.

All computers are easily hacked. To prove otherwise would require the manufacturer to reveal all internals, such as operating system code. Which was never done. So anyone claiming the voting machines can not be remotely rigged, is just a liar. The fact Dominion won the case is proof of how badly our court system is. Its like Dred Scott all over again.

And again you lie by claiming a "plethora of investigations", when that is clearly not true and there has never been a single investigation. There was never time for one. For example, no one ever followed the people dumping bags full of ballots into the drop boxes. And if they were elderly facilities, no one ever did a handwriting analysis to determine if the staff was filling in the ballots instead of the elderly. Basically nothing has ever been looked into at all, in any way. And voter fraud is likely much worse now than 2000, when is was absurdly bad already.

 

[Rigby5]

You seem intentionally to be acting dumb. But then I forget. I know you from many posts on many subjects, and you always act that way.

Be specific.
What motive do you think the protestors had?
I have heard people claiming that it was to keep Trump in power by preventing the vote certification.
But that clearly is a lie because preventing vote certification does NOT keep Trump in power.
If no vote is certified in time, Trump is still out, and an interim president is appointed, such as the Speaker of the House.
So what are you claiming is "dumb"?
What is obviously dumb is anyone claiming Trump would have a motive for lying about voter fraud.
It would not be to his advantage in anyway if it was false.

 

[Rigby5]

False equivalence.


People were not convicted of seditious conspiracy for breaking windows.

Since the protestors did nothing remotely worse then breaking windows, then what is it you are complaining about?

 

[Rigby5]

I agree. Trump was trying to lead an “insurrection” against his own government? In South America they have a name for that, but we don’t as it had never been tried before here: an auto golpe.

Trump was the legal President for another two weeks even after J6. Trump committed seditious conspiracy in using all the powers he did possess and could wield to try to stop the legitimate transfer of power to the newly elected Biden Administration. He tried to organize a Constitutional Crisis and disallow already state validated and court backed Electoral slates for Biden. Trump and his gang actually might have succeeded if Pence and many other Republicans had allowed themselves to be brow-beaten into joining the conspiracy.

Wrong.
If Trump wanted to remain president, he would have had to have used force and required military backing.
There protestors could do nothing that could possibly have kept Trump in office.
Regardless if the new election is certified or not, Trumps term would have expired and he would be out.

 

[Rigby5]

That isn't really an argument and has nothing to do with what I responded too.

It's just opining your thots and feels.

Do you agree people should be using the term seditious conspiracy instead of insurrection?

Neither insurrection nor sedition is at all remotely appropriate.

 

[Rigby5]

J6 is what the former fuckup called for, organized and carried out. It was stupid to think they could force Hang Mike Pence to throw the election back to red legislators and their false electors.

But stupid is what maga is all about.

Its not just stupid, but impossible.
There is absolutely no way the protestors could have kept Trump on office.
No could there possibly have been any sort of "false electors", since the electors do not go to DC, it is the congressmen who carry the state legislature supervised vote to DC.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Yes, they all have.
You have heard of Ray Epps, right?

The fed? Yeah, I've heard of him. He pled guilty, so no he didn't claim entrapment. If you don't know the answer it's okay not to say something stupid instead.

 

[Lakhota]

Insurrection is a legal term that is actually enumerated in federal law. It comes with a well established list of consequences including disqualification for elective office and well it should.

Now then. ..j6. let's make some observations. First of all Trespassing. Very stupid. I don't care who opens the door or who does the inviting. You should know better and what the hell is this? I mean are you serious?

View attachment 885644
Who could possibly take this seriously? Did this guy think he was helping?

So let's talk about first amendment and protesting.
It's allowed! Trespassing is not.
Destruction of federal property.
Bad idea!

If you're stupid enough to fall for agents provacatuer....then what can I say. You're stupid.

Does this fit the classic description of an actual insurrection? Hardly. That's actually a silly stretch. I will concede that the judiciary has a right to be harsh. I believe that 2020 was an illegitimate election. However you can't fix that by trespassing at the Capitol.

Real patriotism dictates that you find an answer within the legal boundaries even if your opponent did not.

This event never had a snowball's chance in hell at affecting a change in the election results. If 50 groups simultaneously besieged 50 state's capitols seeking to destroy actual physical election records Ok.... insurrection. But this? Nah....this was just sublime STUPID.

It sure looks like the Feds planned it and facilitated it. All they needed was dupes to fill in the numbers.

That's my 2 cents

Jo

Wow, that sounds really retarded.

 

[justoffal]

Wow, that sounds really retarded.

Scared huh?

 

[Rigby5]

Pearl Harbor didn't shake our foundation of Democracy.

The former fuckups attempt to deny a peaceful transfer of power and install himself does.

Delaying election certification does NOT "install" anyone.
Trump's term would still end and he would be out.
If the next president is delayed, then someone is approinted pro-tem.
The Founders were not foolish enough to encourage a president to delay elections to stay in power.

 

[Rigby5]

Ahh...no wonder Trump supporters failed miserably.

PS: just because a criminal fails at his crime doesn’t mean he can’t be charged with that crime?

Except that there has to be some evidence of an attempt by Trump to stay in power.
Since protestor demonstrating over voter fraud could not possibly in any way have kept Trump in office, there is zero evidence.

 

[Rigby5]

So Dems lost all credibility because a Democrat made an objective remark that you disagreed with.

That is all it takes? Seditious conspiracy be damned, Chuck's opinion gave you the mads?

An irresponsible hyperbole is criminal.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Jesus, Rigby5 , I have no time to play these games. Everything about your arguments is dumb, illogical, or irrelevant. This is not about individual Jan. 6th protester’s motivations, but juries, prosecutors and judges certainly take that into consideration in individual cases in deciding verdicts and sentencing. which is only one reason why penalties vary and are often mild. Again, most of those convicted confessed to breaking the law!

There were undoubtedly silly fools (like yourself?) who may have “meant well” and just got excited and found themselves doing illegal things they later regretted on Jan. 6th … without being in the slightest consciously part of any “criminal conspiracy,” let alone “insurrection.”

That has nothing to do with the charges being brought against Trump and hard core conscious organizers of his attempt to disqualify and “steal” certified state electoral slates and throw the election into the House to keep himself in power illegally … or any of the other crimes he and his alleged seditious co-conspirators are charged with.

The motivations and trials of many really violent individual protestors who battled cops and broke into the Capitol also has little to do with all the other criminal charges being brought against Trump and others who never entered the Capitol. Except perhaps to the extent that they are charged with exciting and provoking such actions, as in Giuliani’s incitement to “trial by combat.” “Leaders” like Trump are being adjudicated in their own court trials separately for their own alleged crimes, as they should be, and they have expensive lawyers and all the rights provided by our judicial system, where they have the right to appeal right up to the Conservative Republican-dominated Supreme Court.

Damn, here I am wasting my time with you again!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Insurrection is a legal term that is actually enumerated in federal law. It comes with a well established list of consequences including disqualification for elective office and well it should.

Now then. ..j6. let's make some observations. First of all Trespassing. Very stupid. I don't care who opens the door or who does the inviting. You should know better and what the hell is this? I mean are you serious?

View attachment 885644
Who could possibly take this seriously? Did this guy think he was helping?

So let's talk about first amendment and protesting.
It's allowed! Trespassing is not.
Destruction of federal property.
Bad idea!

If you're stupid enough to fall for agents provacatuer....then what can I say. You're stupid.

Does this fit the classic description of an actual insurrection? Hardly. That's actually a silly stretch. I will concede that the judiciary has a right to be harsh. I believe that 2020 was an illegitimate election. However you can't fix that by trespassing at the Capitol.

Real patriotism dictates that you find an answer within the legal boundaries even if your opponent did not.

This event never had a snowball's chance in hell at affecting a change in the election results. If 50 groups simultaneously besieged 50 state's capitols seeking to destroy actual physical election records Ok.... insurrection. But this? Nah....this was just sublime STUPID.

It sure looks like the Feds planned it and facilitated it. All they needed was dupes to fill in the numbers.

That's my 2 cents

Jo

The issue here is that a bad, unorganized insurrection is still and insurrection.

What did people attempt to achieve? Probably they thought they might be a spark. They weren't attempting to take over the government with what they had. They would have tried to take over TV stations and infiltrate the military and the like.

That the chances of success were somewhere in the low 0.000001%, perhaps they just wanted to create what they've created, which is a narrative of being the victim.

It's hard to know, sometimes things happen and people take advantage of such things as they come up.

 

[otto105]

Delaying election certification does NOT "install" anyone.
Trump's term would still end and he would be out.
If the next president is delayed, then someone is approinted pro-tem.
The Founders were not foolish enough to encourage a president to delay elections to stay in power.

There was no reason to delay the certification of the election. All 50 states had certified.

Trying to have Hang Mike Pence throw it back to red state houses would have installed him.

 

[Rigby5]

Strawman.

Nobody was convicted of seditious conspiracy because they claimed voter fraud.



No it isn't. Based on that logic, you could never have seditious conspiracy unless you succeeded...in which case you would not find yourself guilty of seditious conspiracy.



Yes, he could have.

Are you not aware of the fake electors and the Eastman memo?


Claims of seditious conspiracy are hardly absurd considering multiple people were convicted of seditious conspiracy.

As you can see below, seditious conspiricy does not have any of the stipulations you attempted to apply, in order to be seditious conspiracy. Whatever media outlet, blog or talking head that fed you that information lied to you.

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

www.law.cornell.edu

While I agree a seditious attempt does not have to succeed in order to be prosecutable, it does at least have to have been possible.
And there is absolutely no possible way to keep Trump in office with the Jan 6 protest.
Since none of the protestors brough weapons capable of subduing the police, the police could easily have forced them all out at any time.
Since none of the protestors brought sleeping bags, they all had to leave that day either way.
So then at worst, the election certification could only at most been delayed a single day.
In what possible way could that have remotely been beneficial to Trump?

Sedition does not have to succeed in order to be prosecutable, but the actions of those involved have to at least appear as if they thought it could have succeeded.
And it obvious could not have.
No one could have been so deranged as to think a 1 day delay would at all help Trump in anyway.

I am aware of how alternate electors are always selected by all parties ahead of time, and that the state legislature listens to and tallies the elector's votes, so no fake electors are at all possible.
The state legislators already know who the valid electors are and how they are supposed to vote.

And again, you are totally wrong about what sedition is.
The protestors were not against the way the government is supposed to be run, but were claiming there was a criminal alteration of how the government is supposed to be run, and in effect they were acting as vigilantes.
That is NOT sedition at all, but is being hyper patriotic, the exact opposite.

The courts convicting them of sedition likely are corrupt liars, (unless there is more that have not been told about, which is very unlikely).