January 6 Was Not A Coup

[SeaMajor7]

Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation of Russian election interference, and whether the Trump campaign was wittingly or unwittingly working with the Russians,

BEGAN BEFORE the Dossier was given to the FBI.....

Oh, that makes the leftists coup attempt WORSE!!!!!

Good that you brought that up!

 

[Care4all]

It’s not up to me, or you berg…All we can do is vote…But, I would think if this thing were as serious as all you pearl clutching progressives say, then Nancy wouldn’t have had to stack the committee…

She didn't stack the committee silly one! McCarthy pulled out, including the 3 guys accepted he appointed. And McCarthy knew from the get go, Jordan and Banks would be poison pills, and she would reject them, which was within her power with a Select committee.... this planned rejection, gave McCarthy the public view of his followers with his reason to pull out....

He had the GOP pull out of the non partisan 9/11 type commission to investigate as well....AFTER Pelosi gave him everything he negotiated for....equal appointed repubs to democrats, and equal subpoena power for republicans etc.....he got ALL that the repubs negotiated for, but after a visit to Mara Lago, he changed his mind on it....flip flopped.


The only reason McCarthy people are not on this committee, is because he CHOSE not to have them.... So he could later get you guys, to make the claim that the committee is partisan and bogus or fake or a witch hunt, you know....Trump's usual M/O.

AND THE ONLY REASON no one is hearing the so called other side of the story is because the people on supposedly Trump's defense side have refused to testify or respond to subpoenas on the grounds of presidential/executive privilege or they are pleading the 5th Amendment on the grounds that their testimony could incriminate themselves.

J mac, this was just dirty politicking, by McCarthy....he took his chances on the entirety pull out....and thank goodness, it looks like his scummy plan, is going to fail!

 

[j-mac]

She didn't stack the committee silly one! McCarthy pulled out, including the 3 guys accepted he appointed. And McCarthy knew from the get go, Jordan and Banks would be poison pills, and she would reject them, which was within her power with a Select committee.... this planned rejection, gave McCarthy the public view of his followers with his reason to pull out....

He had the GOP pull out of the non partisan 9/11 type commission to investigate as well....AFTER Pelosi gave him everything he negotiated for....equal appointed repubs to democrats, and equal subpoena power for republicans etc.....he got ALL that the repubs negotiated for, but after a visit to Mara Lago, he changed his mind on it....flip flopped.


The only reason McCarthy people are not on this committee, is because he CHOSE not to have them.... So he could later get you guys, to make the claim that the committee is partisan and bogus or fake or a witch hunt, you know....Trump's usual M/O.

AND THE ONLY REASON no one is hearing the so called other side of the story is because the people on supposedly Trump's defense side have refused to testify or respond to subpoenas on the grounds of presidential/executive privilege or they are pleading the 5th Amendment on the grounds that their testimony could incriminate themselves.

J mac, this was just dirty politicking, by McCarthy....he took his chances on the entirety pull out....and thank goodness, it looks like his scummy plan, is going to fail!

You give McCarthy too much credit…So, you’re saying he played Nancy?

 

[Care4all]

You give McCarthy too much credit…So, you’re saying he played Nancy?

He didn't play Nancy....he mistakenly, thought he could!! Time, with the facts before us all, his dirty politicking is coming back to bite him.

 

[j-mac]

He didn't play Nancy....he mistakenly, thought he could!! Time, with the facts before us all, his dirty politicking is coming back to bite him.

Lol, so Nancy had stacking the committee regardless of who the republicans wanted…

 

[Lesh]

Lol, so Nancy had stacking the committee regardless of who the republicans wanted…

Nope. Republicans were welcome...just not those involved in the coup

 

[j-mac]

Nope. Republicans were welcome...just not those involved in the coup

Bullshit, there was no coup….This has nothing to do with finding out what happened on 1/6, more a campaign to bury Trump

 

[dudmuck]

Bullshit, there was no coup….This has nothing to do with finding out what happened on 1/6, more a campaign to bury Trump

it was an attempted coup, aka practice run for the next one.

 

[BackAgain]

So all we need to overturn an election is to think fake stuff and do it? That is crazy. It’s crazy you don’t see that.

The mob was there to stop the vote. I am not sure if they planned to hurt and kill people but ultimately did.

Nobody overturned an election. That’s first.

Secondly, to help you out a bit, I have said it before. I’ll say it again now. I believe the President lacked sufficient evidence of a successful theft to support his belief. But, that only means that Pence was right to reject the suggestion to refuse certification.

The protestors were there to protest an election theft. The small component of the protestors (who arguably constituted a “mob”) was there without guns to try to get the “stolen” election certification at least delayed. What about that? As I’ve said, prosecute them for the crimes actually committed. That list still doesn’t include insurrection or an attempted coup.

They didn’t kill anybody, either. You’re also wrong about that.

 

[BackAgain]

Some of them wanted to kill Pence. They said so. All with any Congress people they found. And you are forgetting it was a fired up mob, with a mob mentality. The fact that gallows were just imagery doesn’t change that.

I’ve heard people say “kill the ump,” too. Saying it isn’t the same as meaning it.

I am not forgetting any of it. You seem to forget that nobody in that fired up mob who got inside the Capitol had a gun. Rather than claiming that you know what they wanted to do based on an angry chant (idiotic though it may have been), I’d submit it is more logical to base that determination on what they were prepared to do. Being unarmed, they weren’t prepared to do much more than they did do: trespass, property damage and some assaults.

 

[BackAgain]

Maybe I can help? I have on this board made the argument that there have been several cases where the presiding judge did rule, or rather dismissed the merits of the cases put before them, using the actual rulings as the source. If I link these would you accept that your assertions that judges haven't ruled on the merits of voter fraud assertions as wrong?

I’d appreciate links to the cases (to the extent any exist) where judges have gotten to the issues raised via any evidentiary type hearing.

And what I’m saying stands as said until then. I believe you’ll see that I qualified what I said. It is possible that a case or two may have progressed beyond a procedural dismissal. But sure. I’m asking for links.

 

[j-mac]

it was an attempted coup, aka practice run for the next one.

So, what was the desired outcome? Was the military going to accept Viking hat guy as the new leader?

 

[forkup]

I’d appreciate links to the cases (to the extent any exist) where judges have gotten to the issues raised via any evidentiary type hearing.

And what I’m saying stands as said until then. I believe you’ll see that I qualified what I said. It is possible that a case or two may have progressed beyond a procedural dismissal. But sure. I’m asking for links.

Pearson v. Kemp - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

Stoddard v. City Election Commission of the City of Detroit - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

Wayback Machine

3 cases where a judge looked at the evidence and found its strength wanting.

In fact. Citing 'Inexplicable' Delay, Federal Appeals Court Unanimously Shoots Down Sidney Powell's Bid to Stay Sanctions

Lawyers who claimed fraud were sanctioned because they were deemed to have filed in bad faith.

You might or might not know this but for a judge to decide that the arguments of a case were not just ill-conceived but put out in bad faith the lawyer in question has to have made some pretty horrendous arguments.

Do you concede? Or is this where you move the goalposts?

 

[BackAgain]

Out of an abundant zeal to be more precise and accurate, in light of the commentary by Chilli and forkup (great username by the way), I have gone on a quail hunt. I have found some cases decided more on the deficiencies of some legal pleadings than on procedural bars such as “lack of standing.”

An Australian outlet summarized several cases. See, https://www.news.com.au/world/north...t/news-story/d4f1fd532cfa6e9ccebc45793f0f6ab3 Like the Supreme Court case from Texas, many cases were just procedural punts as I have been noting. However, it also refers to some cases where the complaints alleged either just hearsay (insufficient to raise the issues) or were too factually non-specific to permit the full hearing. That kind of dismissal is a bit of a blur. It is both procedural and somewhat on the merits (albeit on the merits of the pleadings more than the merits of what a full hearing may have been able to demonstrate).

The list from the Australian piece still fails to show cases that made it as far as a full blown hearing on the merits. I don’t recall seeing any of those. You see, it is one thing (even assuming zero judicial bias) for a court to dismiss a case on technical pleading or other (procedural) grounds. It is another thing entirely where a case is heard on the merits and the plaintiff simply loses on that basis.

 

[BackAgain]

Pearson v. Kemp - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

Stoddard v. City Election Commission of the City of Detroit - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

Wayback Machine

3 cases where a judge looked at the evidence and found its strength wanting.

In fact. Citing 'Inexplicable' Delay, Federal Appeals Court Unanimously Shoots Down Sidney Powell's Bid to Stay Sanctions

Lawyers who claimed fraud were sanctioned because they were deemed to have filed in bad faith.

You might or might not know this but for a judge to decide that the arguments of a case were not just ill-conceived but put out in bad faith the lawyer in question has to have made some pretty horrendous arguments.

Do you concede? Or is this where you move the goalposts?

That first case was an appeal effort and even the appeal got dismissed because the underlying order was, itself, not appealable. So, your score at this point is zer0.

Stoddard, of course, reviewed the legal basis for the issuance of an injunction which includes a consideration of the likelihood of success. So, when it got dismissed it wasn’t on the merits. So, your score is stuck at zero.

I have no reason to concern myself with the awful pleadings by Ms. Powell. I read them. They sucked ass. But, again, the question is not whether the “Kraken” case turned out to be a tiny little Gecko. The question is whether the underlying complaints got a hearing on the merits. And you know what?
Your score is stuck at zer0.

Also, and this is important, noting that a case or many cases or all cases got dismissed on technical or procedural grounds rather than getting to a hearing phase is NOT being critical of any of the judges or those determinations. As I say, some of the pleadings were atrocious. I’m not so sure that procedural dismissals on the grounds of “standing” are good judicial decisions. But again, they don’t reach the merits in any event.

I’ll accept your concession unless you have a case you wish to show where a case or cases got to the hearing stage. But I’m still looking.

 

[forkup]

Out of an abundant zeal to be more precise and accurate, in light of the commentary by Chilli and forkup (great username by the way), I have gone on a quail hunt. I have found some cases decided more on the deficiencies of some legal pleadings than on procedural bars such as “lack of standing.”

An Australian outlet summarized several cases. See, https://www.news.com.au/world/north...t/news-story/d4f1fd532cfa6e9ccebc45793f0f6ab3 Like the Supreme Court case from Texas, many cases were just procedural punts as I have been noting. However, it also refers to some cases where the complaints alleged either just hearsay (insufficient to raise the issues) or were too factually non-specific to permit the full hearing. That kind of dismissal is a bit of a blur. It is both procedural and somewhat on the merits (albeit on the merits of the pleadings more than the merits of what a full hearing may have been able to demonstrate).

The list from the Australian piece still fails to show cases that made it as far as a full blown hearing on the merits. I don’t recall seeing any of those. You see, it is one thing (even assuming zero judicial bias) for a court to dismiss a case on technical pleading or other (procedural) grounds. It is another thing entirely where a case is heard on the merits and the plaintiff simply loses on that basis.

Ah, moving the goalposts it is then. If a plaintiff can't get past the initial hearing because the evidence isn't convincing, you HAVE been judged on merit. In fact, the judge has considered the evidence so meritless he doesn't need a full-blown hearing to determine that. It is a very low bar in any court, and they have failed to navigate it.

Plaintiffs’ pleadings do not persuade this Court that they are likely to prevail on the merits for several reasons.

By contract, plaintiffs do not offer any affidavits or specific eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions. Plaintiffs merely assert in their verified complaint “Hundreds or thousands of ballots were duplicated solely by Democratic party inspectors and then counted.” Plaintiffs’ allegation is mere speculation.

Stoddard v. City Election Commission of the City of Detroit - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

This is not blurry at all. This is a judge saying they are speculating without giving evidence.

Such a move would appear to be unprecedented in American history. One might expect that this solemn request would be paired with evidence of serious errors tied to a substantial and demonstrated set of illegal votes. Instead, the evidentiary support rests almost entirely on the unsworn expert report1 of a former campaign employee that offers statistical estimates based on call center samples and social media research

Wayback Machine

Again not blurry but specific problems with the nature of the evidence presented.

 

[BackAgain]

Ah, moving the goalposts it is then. If a plaintiff can't get past the initial hearing because the evidence isn't convincing, you HAVE been judged on merit. In fact, the judge has considered the evidence so meritless he doesn't need a full-blown hearing to determine that. It is a very low bar in any court, and they have failed to navigate it.

Plaintiffs’ pleadings do not persuade this Court that they are likely to prevail on the merits for several reasons.

By contract, plaintiffs do not offer any affidavits or specific eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions. Plaintiffs merely assert in their verified complaint “Hundreds or thousands of ballots were duplicated solely by Democratic party inspectors and then counted.” Plaintiffs’ allegation is mere speculation.

Stoddard v. City Election Commission of the City of Detroit - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

This is not blurry at all. This is a judge saying they are speculating without giving evidence.

Such a move would appear to be unprecedented in American history. One might expect that this solemn request would be paired with evidence of serious errors tied to a substantial and demonstrated set of illegal votes. Instead, the evidentiary support rests almost entirely on the unsworn expert report1 of a former campaign employee that offers statistical estimates based on call center samples and social media research

Wayback Machine

Again not blurry but specific problems with the nature of the evidence presented.

Zzz. I moved no goalpost as you know. The fact is: the cases didn’t get to a hearing stage. Show me one that did. One.

Otherwise, admit your fail and stop lying. Don’t you need to be spreading misinformation and disinformation in other arenas?

 

[BackAgain]

Ah, moving the goalposts it is then. If a plaintiff can't get past the initial hearing because the evidence isn't convincing, you HAVE been judged on merit. In fact, the judge has considered the evidence so meritless he doesn't need a full-blown hearing to determine that. It is a very low bar in any court, and they have failed to navigate it.

Plaintiffs’ pleadings do not persuade this Court that they are likely to prevail on the merits for several reasons.

By contract, plaintiffs do not offer any affidavits or specific eyewitness evidence to substantiate their assertions. Plaintiffs merely assert in their verified complaint “Hundreds or thousands of ballots were duplicated solely by Democratic party inspectors and then counted.” Plaintiffs’ allegation is mere speculation.

Stoddard v. City Election Commission of the City of Detroit - Wikisource, the free online library

en.wikisource.org

This is not blurry at all. This is a judge saying they are speculating without giving evidence.

Such a move would appear to be unprecedented in American history. One might expect that this solemn request would be paired with evidence of serious errors tied to a substantial and demonstrated set of illegal votes. Instead, the evidentiary support rests almost entirely on the unsworn expert report1 of a former campaign employee that offers statistical estimates based on call center samples and social media research

Wayback Machine

Again not blurry but specific problems with the nature of the evidence presented.

And again; no hearings.

Keep flailing, forked. It’s kind of amusing.

 

[forkup]

Zzz. I moved no goalpost as you know. The fact is: the cases didn’t get to a hearing stage. Show me one that did. One.

Otherwise, admit your fail and stop lying. Don’t you need to be spreading misinformation and disinformation in other arenas?

The prelimanary hearing is a hearing. So.. all of them did. In fact, since you find me amusing. I'll say something else funny.

You are arguing that cases that a judge felt confident to dismiss out of hand for a lack of evidence, somehow will get better in a setting where you don't just have to provide evidence but convincing enough evidence to be granted relief.

To me personally, that is hilarious.

 

[BackAgain]

The prelimanary hearing is a hearing. So.. all of them did. In fact, since you find me amusing. I'll say something else funny.

You are arguing that cases that a judge felt confident to dismiss out of hand for a lack of evidence, somehow will get better in a setting where you don't just have to provide evidence but convincing enough evidence to be granted relief.

To me personally, that is hilarious.

Wrong. A review of pleadings isn’t a substantive hearing. I assume you don’t know any better. But don’t be so quick to make shit up. You’ll get called on it and expose yourself more fully as the twit yuh are.

You’re not hilarious. Your just plodding and unpersuasive.

For all your nonsense, however, the highlighted fact shines out starkly: no factual hearings or decisions on the merits have been had.