....Recommendation on J6 readings: Lawfare......

[Chillicothe]

If you are not occasionally perusing Lawfare.com, well, I would recommend it. Lawfare

What it is---is a blog on legal issues in the news, or of interest to legal scholars.
(Wicki: Lawfare is an American blog dedicated to national security issues, published by the Lawfare Institute in cooperation with the Brookings Institution.[1][2] )

They occasionally have some coverage of aspects of the J6 tragedy.

Recently they offered us this suggested decision matrix for determining the effectiveness of the J6 Select Committee:



".....the committee’s hearings should—at least in our view—be adjudged a success from an evidentiary point of view to precisely the extent that they would convince a reasonable person that:

1. Trump attempted to convince Americans that significant levels of fraud had stolen the election from him despite knowing that he had, in fact, lost the 2020 election;
2. Trump planned to remove and replace the attorney general and other Justice Department officials as part of an effort to pressure the department to spread his allegations of election fraud;
3. Trump worked “to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th”;
4. Trump tried to convince state lawmakers and election officials to alter election results;
5. Trump’s lawyers and other members of the president’s team directed Republicans in multiple states to produce fake electoral slates and send those slates to Congress and the National Archives;
6. Trump assembled a destructive group of rioters in Washington and sent them to the U.S. Capitol; and
7. Trump ignored requests to speak out against the violence in real time and failed to act quickly to stop the attack and tell his supporters to depart the Capitol.
   
   ----------------------------------------------------------
   

 

[MarathonMike]

What do your "legal scholars" think of an investigation into the Capitol Security breach where you don't interview anyone involved with Capitol Security, or the leadership who failed to provide adequate security?

 

[Rambunctious]

Trump tried to convince state lawmakers and election officials to alter election results;

Lie... flat out lie....

Trump assembled a destructive group of rioters in Washington and sent them to the U.S. Capitol;

Lie... where did you find this BS again?....

Try again ....

 

[JGalt]

If you are not occasionally perusing Lawfare.com, well, I would recommend it. Lawfare

What it is---is a blog on legal issues in the news, or of interest to legal scholars.
(Wicki: Lawfare is an American blog dedicated to national security issues, published by the Lawfare Institute in cooperation with the Brookings Institution.[1][2] )

They occasionally have some coverage of aspects of the J6 tragedy.

Recently they offered us this suggested decision matrix for determining the effectiveness of the J6 Select Committee:



".....the committee’s hearings should—at least in our view—be adjudged a success from an evidentiary point of view to precisely the extent that they would convince a reasonable person that:

1. Trump attempted to convince Americans that significant levels of fraud had stolen the election from him despite knowing that he had, in fact, lost the 2020 election;
2. Trump planned to remove and replace the attorney general and other Justice Department officials as part of an effort to pressure the department to spread his allegations of election fraud;
3. Trump worked “to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th”;
4. Trump tried to convince state lawmakers and election officials to alter election results;
5. Trump’s lawyers and other members of the president’s team directed Republicans in multiple states to produce fake electoral slates and send those slates to Congress and the National Archives;
6. Trump assembled a destructive group of rioters in Washington and sent them to the U.S. Capitol; and
7. Trump ignored requests to speak out against the violence in real time and failed to act quickly to stop the attack and tell his supporters to depart the Capitol.
   
   ----------------------------------------------------------

It wasn't a "tragedy." It was a protest that some undercover FBI and leftist infiltrators turned into a riot.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

J6 Reichstag Fire

 

[Care4all]

That's pretty much what we learned up to the last hearing, but the discoveries in the last hearing don't seem to be covered by law fare yet????

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

What do your "legal scholars" think of an investigation into the Capitol Security breach where you don't interview anyone involved with Capitol Security, or the leadership who failed to provide adequate security?

AND WERE WARNED FOR WEEKS TROUBLE BREWING

This was loosely planned. They look so foolish

 

[Care4all]

It wasn't a "tragedy." It was a protest that some undercover FBI and leftist infiltrators turned into a riot.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Intentional ignorance!!!!

Most of the protesters may not have known Trump's plan for them in his self coup de'tat attempt, but it is clear as day, that Trump knew what he was having them do....

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

It wasn't a "tragedy." It was a protest that some undercover FBI and leftist infiltrators turned into a riot.

Nothing more, nothing less.

It was evident as it was happening to someone with a lick of sense

If I were Ray Epps I would.....

 

[BluesLegend]

I'll get on that right after I organize my sock drawer and watch some grass grow.

 

[Care4all]

What do your "legal scholars" think of an investigation into the Capitol Security breach where you don't interview anyone involved with Capitol Security, or the leadership who failed to provide adequate security?

They were all interviewed under oath.

 

[Chillicothe]

What do your "legal scholars" think of an investigation into the Capitol Security breach where you don't interview anyone involved with Capitol Security, or the leadership who failed to provide adequate security?

I honestly don't know what they think. Maybe they have written about it in Lawfare.
If so, well, poster Marathon, I would recommend you go to the site and see.
Good luck. Let us know what you have found.
Thanks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's pretty much what we learned up to the last hearing, but the discoveries in the last hearing don't seem to be covered by law fare yet????

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Covered by lawfare yet'?

Try this:

Cassidy Hutchinson’s Testimony Changed Our Minds About Indicting Donald Trump

 

[JGalt]

Intentional ignorance!!!!

Most of the protesters may not have known Trump's plan for them in his self coup de'tat attempt, but it is clear as day, that Trump knew what he was having them do....

That's just plain dumb. There was no coup de'tat attempt.

Christ! You Jan-Sixer's cheese has done slid off your crackers.

 

[scruffy]

Cassidy Hutchinson’s Testimony Changed Our Minds About Indicting Donald Trump

That's how stupid they are? Hearsay changed their minds? Good thing they're not in the jury pool

 

[Care4all]

That's just plain dumb. There was no coup de'tat attempt.

Christ! You Jan-Sixer's cheese has done slid off your crackers.

Yes, there was an attempted SELF COUP.




A self-coup, also called autocoup (from the Spanish autogolpe), is a form of coup d'état in which a nation's leader, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means.

Self-coup - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup

 

[Care4all]

That's how stupid they are? Hearsay changed their minds? Good thing they're not in the jury pool

It wasn't the hearsay that changed their minds silly one!

 

[Care4all]

It was evident as it was happening to someone with a lick of sense

If I were Ray Epps I would.....

View attachment 666727

You do know the Committee had Ray Epps come in for them to interview under oath, don't you?

 

[MinTrut]

If you are not occasionally perusing Lawfare.com, well, I would recommend it. Lawfare

What it is---is a blog on legal issues in the news, or of interest to legal scholars.
(Wicki: Lawfare is an American blog dedicated to national security issues, published by the Lawfare Institute in cooperation with the Brookings Institution.[1][2] )

They occasionally have some coverage of aspects of the J6 tragedy.

Recently they offered us this suggested decision matrix for determining the effectiveness of the J6 Select Committee:



".....the committee’s hearings should—at least in our view—be adjudged a success from an evidentiary point of view to precisely the extent that they would convince a reasonable person that:

1. Trump attempted to convince Americans that significant levels of fraud had stolen the election from him despite knowing that he had, in fact, lost the 2020 election;
2. Trump planned to remove and replace the attorney general and other Justice Department officials as part of an effort to pressure the department to spread his allegations of election fraud;
3. Trump worked “to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th”;
4. Trump tried to convince state lawmakers and election officials to alter election results;
5. Trump’s lawyers and other members of the president’s team directed Republicans in multiple states to produce fake electoral slates and send those slates to Congress and the National Archives;
6. Trump assembled a destructive group of rioters in Washington and sent them to the U.S. Capitol; and
7. Trump ignored requests to speak out against the violence in real time and failed to act quickly to stop the attack and tell his supporters to depart the Capitol.
   
   ----------------------------------------------------------

^ Garbage.

 

[Rogue AI]

Is there a George RR Martin version, he's like the current master of fantasy?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Intentional ignorance!!!!

Most of the protesters may not have known Trump's plan for them in his self coup de'tat attempt, but it is clear as day, that Trump knew what he was having them do....

For a coup to work, for an insurrection to work, the subordinates (the protesters) must be coordinated by a leader. They must be aware of his plan. If the protesters didn't know of his plan, then he couldn't have possibly staged either one successfully.

It was a colossal failure. And so is this idea that he tried to stage a coup or insurrection. Might I suggest you're the one being intentionally ignorant?