Support January 6th Prisoners!

[Chillicothe]

Seditious Conspiracy and similar concepts is a dangerous thing to have a government get in the habit of using against people it doesn't like

Well, personally......I ain't frettin' over 'gettin' in the habit'. After all, it's pretty doggone rare.
There's this: "Egyptian Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman (along with nine others) was charged and convicted of “seditious conspiracy” 26 years ago amid the 1993 World Trade Center bombing."
After that there was this (tho the sedition charges were dropped): "Five members of “Hutaree,” a Christian militia group in Michigan, had sedition charges brought against them in 2010 after accusations “of plotting an antigovernment uprising,”
So, much ado over nothing.
Unless, of course, you are one of the Oathkeepers and/or Proud Boys who is being tried for it right now. THAT is different kettle of fish. For them.
IMHO
--------------------------------------------------------

But for the same of argument, let's say that burning courthouses and invading the Capitol and smashing windows are the same.

Well, they are not the same.
Burning a Court House in Minnesota is a Minnesota challenge. Local law enforcement's challenge. And if that Court House burned down we'd re-build it, and too....we have plenty of others. We'd punish the evil-doers, and go on.

In contrast, we have one Capitol of the United States of America. It is the seat of our entire federal representational governance. It is....per Captain Obvious.....a much much bigger deal with a much much wider circle of impact than one of our local or Federal Court Houses burned down in, say, Koochiching, Minnesota.....or even St.Paul, Minnesota.
Trust me on that.
----------------------------------------------------------

They did not try to overturn anything. They wanted a Congressional investigation.

You know, poster Lastamender you are a frequent and consistent poster of that "Congressional investigation' canard, implying that state and local elections must now be federalized. Become part of 'bigger government'.

So, with the Constitution explicit in the 'State's Right's' aspect of elections being a local endeavor, mandate, and charge.......how then, does a Representative from Montana, for example, get to make a substantive ruling in an election in Pennsylvania? Either at the State, or Federal level? Or even for County Recorder of Deeds?

In short, election questions, crimes, malfeasance, mismanagement, etc.......fall under the auspices and jurisdiction of the particular State the above may or may not have occurred in.
I hope I am clear on that.

 

[Doug1943]

Don't be so silly. Doesn't matter how many times you try to equate the failed coup with other events, they are still not the same. They tried to overthrow an election, and install the loser as president. You don't see that is an entirely different level?

Nothing is ever the same as anything else. They believed the loser was being installed as President, and they had reasons to believe it. They couldn't understand why Trump's rallies were large and enthusiastic, and Biden's were not ... and then the vote went the other way.

But most people have trouble understanding others who are not like them. In this case, they couldn't understand that there were people who didn't like Biden, but saw Trump as far worse. (I myself supported Hilary in 2016, out of fear that Trump's ignorance and narcissism might get us into WWIII. Boy, was I wrong. The WarParty runs both parties, but Trump, for his own reasons, wasn't part of it.)

But ... never mind. They should be punished just as a group of Leftists who did the same thing would be punished. As they say, life is hard, and it's harder if you're stupid. Or, in their case, acted stupidly.

So they, and their co-thinkers like me, need to learn the lessons of 6 January, which is we have got to organize, resist provocateurs, not frighten away the broad middle with macho gun-waving, win over as many as we can from those communities which are not naturally conservative ... meanwhile preparing for what may be a very dangerous future.

 

[Doug1943]

It was better before the white mans invasion, so, yes. Infinitely better.

Really? You think this was good?

Male and female captives as well as teenage boys, would usually face death by ritual torture. The torture had strong sacrificial overtones, usually to the sun. Captives, especially warriors, were expected to show extreme self-control and composure during torture, singing "death songs", bragging of one's courage or deeds in battle, and otherwise showing defiance.

The torture was conducted publicly in the captors' village, and the entire population (including children) watched and participated. Common torture techniques included burning the captive, which was done one hot coal at a time, rather than on firewood pyres; beatings with switches or sticks, jabs from sharp sticks as well as genital mutilation and flaying while still alive.

Captives' fingernails were ripped out. Their fingers were broken, then twisted and yanked by children. Captives were made to eat pieces of their own flesh, and were scalped and skinned alive. Such was the fate of Jamestown Governor John Ratcliffe.

The genitalia of male captives were the focus of considerable attention, culminating with the dissection of the genitals one slice at a time. To make the torture last longer, the Native Americans and the First Nations would revive captives with rest periods during which time they were given food and water. Tortures typically began on the lower limbs, then gradually spread to the arms, then the torso.

The Native Americans and the First Nations spoke of "caressing" the captives gently at first, which meant that the initial tortures were designed to cause pain, but only minimal bodily harm. By these means, the execution of a captive, especially an adult male, could take several days and nights.

In contrast to the Eastern Woodlands tribes, peoples of the Northwest Coast (encompassing the coastal regions of Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and southeastern Alaska), enslaved war captives.

Slaves were traded and were a valuable commodity. More importantly, enslaved captives were given as gifts during a potlatch ceremony to enhance the prestige of the gift giver. Some scholars believe that slaves performed major economic roles in this region and comprised a permanent social class and a significant proportion of the population, though this has proved to be controversial.

Captives in American Indian Wars - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hellbilly]

Really? You think this was good?

Just like every other rightie, you spout the same bullshit.

 

[Chillicothe]

"The election was stolen."

Prove it.
Or...show that it was proven in a court of law.
"In a court of law".....NOT...at a Boogaloo Bois bongfest.

See, it's like this poster Lastamender, any jackass can make any claim they wish on an American internet social media site. And they have a lot of freedom to do so. It's a First Amendment thingy.
And, truth be told, a poster can perceive even more freedom to claim or allege whatever he wishes while doing so using a fake name to post anonymously. In short, there's no skin in the game.

However, human discourse. Responsible adult discourse, does require adherence to some norms in order to be effective discourse that benefits all participants....and even non-participants.

OK, that means: If one makes an assertion, a claim......then that individual is required to vet it. To support it with credible facts. To prove his case, so to speak.

Have you done that?
I haven't seen any of that from your avatar.

So it is like this, poster Lastamender: Show. Or go.

It works that way in poker and blackjack and euchre. For a reason.
It winnows away the unserious, the unqualified, the frivolous, the mendacious, the incompetent, and the non-contributors.

In short, it saves serious people time, energy, and their attention.
I'm sure you understand.

So, saddle up, Skippy. Show. Or go.

 

[Doug1943]

Just like every other rightie, you spout the same bullshit.

Yes, but what do you think about what I posted? Straight from Wikipedia, which, I promise, is not run by us Righties, although I wish it were.

You say that things were infinitely better when the original inhabitants ran the country. Do you mean that we should imitate their method of dealing with prisoners? Or are you of that persuasion which enjoys watching people being tortured?

 

[Lastamender]

Prove it.
Or...show that it was proven in a court of law.
"In a court of law".....NOT...at a Boogaloo Bois bongfest.

See, it's like this poster Lastamender, any jackass can make any claim they wish on an American internet social media site. And they have a lot of freedom to do so. It's a First Amendment thingy.
And, truth be told, a poster can perceive even more freedom to claim or allege whatever he wishes while doing so using a fake name to post anonymously. In short, there's no skin in the game.

However, human discourse. Responsible adult discourse, does require adherence to some norms in order to be effective discourse that benefits all participants....and even non-participants.

OK, that means: If one makes an assertion, a claim......then that individual is required to vet it. To support it with credible facts. To prove his case, so to speak.

Have you done that?
I haven't seen any of that from your avatar.

So it is like this, poster Lastamender: Show. Or go.

It works that way in poker and blackjack and euchre. For a reason.
It winnows away the unserious, the unqualified, the frivolous, the mendacious, the incompetent, and the non-contributors.

In short, it saves serious people time, energy, and their attention.
I'm sure you understand.

So, saddle up, Skippy. Show. Or go.

The courts did not allow one evidentiary hearing. You cannot prove anything without one. Next.

 

[Hellbilly]

Yes, but what do you think about what I posted? Straight from Wikipedia, which, I promise, is not run by us Righties, although I wish it were.

You say that things were infinitely better when the original inhabitants ran the country. Do you mean that we should imitate their method of dealing with prisoners? Or are you of that persuasion which enjoys watching people being tortured?

The war against the colonizers never should have happened. From the moment they invaded this land you gave us lies, rape, murder, diseases. You burned us alive at the first thanksgiving. We signed treaties with you and you broke over 500 of them.
What did we do to deserve this?
We occupied this land for over 15,000 years.

All people get involved in violence. No exceptions. Its human nature.

 

[g5000]

I wouldn't give those traitors jack. They can rot in jail for all I care.

You could write them a note and inform them their weak-mindedness was weaponized by their idol Donald Trump.

 

[Doug1943]

The real issue here is equal treatment under the law. Things like the 6 January Capitol incursion are unique, so there is nothing which is exactly like it. But there have been events which are similar. Here's a report of one:

Nancy Pelosi slammed as hypocrite for praising storming of Wisconsin State Capitol in 2011

• Olivia Burke

HOUSE Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been branded a "hypocrite", after comments resurfaced of her praising the storming of the Wisconsin State Capitol in 2011.

Pelosi praised the incident as an "impressive show of democracy in action" after up to 100,000 people stormed the building in protest of then-Governor Scott Walker's proposed bill to end collective bargaining for the majority of public workers.

Tweets from 2011 have resurfaced of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressing her support for Wisconsin protestors Credit:

The Wisconsin State Capitol was stormed in protest of a bill putting an end to collective bargaining in 2011

Pelosi took to Twitter to express her support and "solidarity" for the cause, yet the 2011 protests somewhat mirror the Capitol riots on January 6 - that she branded an "assault on our democracy".

The House Speaker was extremely vocal in her disgust at the shocking attack on the U.S. Capitol earlier this month, when MAGA supporters stormed the building.

One rioter casually posed with his feet sitting on Pelosi's desk while another stole the House podium from the chambers.

Five people were killed during the deadly insurrection, including a Capitol Police officer and a Trump supporter.

The shocking attack that targeted the heart of American democracy saw the historical Capitol building in tatters, as windows were smashed, doors broken down and vandals let loose, in a bid to prevent certification of Joe Biden's electoral win.

The attack in 2011 somewhat mirrors the Capitol riots on January 6, 2020

Despite the attack being regarded as unprecedented across the world, it is almost identical to the Wisconsin riots.

Unionists stormed the building, breaking down doors and crawling through windows, on a hunt for Republican lawmakers.

Protestors took physical occupation of the building and even established a fully functioning community inside - complete with a sleeping area, an information center and a medic station.

Similar to the events of January 6, lawmakers were ushered to safety by police - but a Democrat alerted the mob, creating a stand-off in the secret tunnel.

Senators were forced to hide under stairwells until police managed to form a human wall to escort them to the safety of a bus, which then had its windows smashed by the mob who started rocking the bus.

Senators were forced to hide and were then evacuated, just like on January 6

The events eerily echo the experiences of lawmakers who lay on the floor sheltering behind chairs in the House gallery, as rioters made their way through the building.

Pelosi quickly pursued Donald Trump's second impeachment after the violence had subsided, for "inciting" the attempted coup.

The tyranny saw both sides of the political aisle denouncing the assault, as well as Trump for encouraging it.

Pelosi has since come under fire for her "hypocritical" stance, after Fox News contributor Mark Thiessen highlighted her previous remarks, who said that "in other words, Democrats were for occupying capitols before they were against it."

Online users condemned her insincerity, writing "This is Nancy Pelosi 10yrs ago when protestors stormed & violently took over and squatted in the Wisconsin State Capital. My how things change! Hypocrite! #DemocratHypocrisy."

[ Pelosi slammed as hypocrite for praising storming of Capitol building in 2011 ]
[Edited to correct grammar and remove photographs and captions; the emboldening is mine.]

Yes, yes, yes. It was 'just' a state Capitol. And it was designed not to overturn an election, but to overturn the results of an election, ie the results that a majority of the elected legislators voted for and which the protestors didn't like.

Okay, Lefties, over to you. "No, no, no, that was different! That was okay because it was US doing it.... No, it was okay because...."

 

[Chillicothe]

"The courts did not allow one evidentiary hearing. You cannot prove anything without one. Next."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umm, that's not true.

Didja watch and listen to renowned election expert Ben Ginsberg's testimony before the J6 Committe in the June 13th hearing?
You should.

But lemme give the forum a taster. You can google up Ginsberg's bona fides. He's the real deal when it comes to election law and procedures. (I have highlighted --bold font ---that tesimony that is most relevant to this thread.)

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/13/1104690690/heres-every-word-of-the-second-jan-6-committee-hearing-on-its-investigation

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

ZOE LOFGREN: So are you aware of any instance in which a court found the Trump campaign's fraud claims to be credible?

BENJAMIN GINSBERG: No. There was — there was never that instance. In all the cases that were brought, and I've looked at the more than 60 that include more than 180 counts. And no, the simple fact is that the Trump campaign did not make its case.

ZOE LOFGREN: The Select Committee has identified 62 post-election lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and his allies between November 4th, 2020 and January 6th, 2021. Those cases resulted in 61 losses and only a single victory which actually didn't affect the outcome for either candidate. Despite those 61 losses, President Trump and his allies claim that the courts refused to hear them out and as a result they never had their day in court.

Mr. Ginsburg, what do you say about the claims that Mr. Trump wasn't given an opportunity to provide the evidence they had of voter fraud? Did they in fact — did they have their day in court?

BENJAMIN GINSBERG: They did have their day in court, About half of those cases that you mentioned were dismissed at the procedural stage for a lack of standing. The proper people didn't bring the case or there wasn't sufficient evidence and it got dismissed on a motion to dismiss. But in the other, there was discussion of the merits that was — that was contained in the complaints.

And in no instance did a court find that the charges of fraud were real. And it's also worth noting that even if the Trump campaign complained that it did not have its day in court, there have been post-election reviews in each of the six battleground states that could have made a difference. And those range from the somewhat farcical cyber ninjas case in Arizona to the Michigan Senate report that was mentioned earlier, the hand recount in Georgia that Mr. Pak addressed.

And in each one of those instances there was no credible evidence of fraud produced by the Trump campaign or his supporters.

ZOE LOFGREN: Thank you. You know, as Mr. Ginsburg has explained, there are no cases where the Trump campaign was able to convince a court that there was widespread fraud or irregularities in the 2020 election. Over and over judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans alike directly refuted this false narrative.

They called out the Trump campaign's lack of evidence for its claims. And the judges did that even in cases where they could have simply thrown out the lawsuit without writing a word. You can see behind me a few excerpts from the decisions in these 62 cases. The Trump campaign's lack of evidence was criticized by judges across the political spectrum.

In Pennsylvania, a Trump appointed judge concluded quote, "Charges require specific allegations and proof. We have neither here." Another Trump appointed judge warned that if cases like these succeeded, quote, "Any disappointed loser in a Presidential election able to hire a team of clever lawyers could flag claimed deviations from election results and cast doubt on election results." The list goes on and on. Allegations are called, quote, "An amalgamation of theories, conjecture, and speculation." In another strained legal arguments without merit, unsupported by evidence, derived from wholly unreliable sources, a fundamental and obvious misreading of the constitution.

The rejection of President Trump's litigation efforts was overwhelming. 22 federal judges appointed by Republican Presidents, including 10 appointed by President Trump himself and at least 24 elected or appointed Republican state judges dismissed the President's claims. At least 11 lawyers have been referred for disciplinary proceedings due to bad faith and baseless efforts to undermine the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election.

 

[okfine]

You could write them a note and inform them their weak-mindedness was weaponized by their idol Donald Trump.

I doubt the detainees would ever get it. Besides, Syndney Powell is handling that. I'll leave it all to her.

 

[Doug1943]

The war against the colonizers never should have happened. From the moment they invaded this land you gave us lies, rape, murder, diseases. You burned us alive at the first thanksgiving. We signed treaties with you and you broke over 500 of them.
What did we do to deserve this?
We occupied this land for over 15,000 years.

All people get involved in violence. No exceptions. Its human nature.

Yes, you're right. I expect the ancestors of the colonizers did more or less the same thing to their captives. And while they were not as systematic in their torture of Indian captives, they certainly murdered plenty of them in cold blood.

The worst thing the colonizers did was in what is now Mexico and Peru: they destroyed two growing civilizations, the Aztecs and the Incas, which were clearly following the same path followed by mankind in the Near East and China. (The Mayas, whose civilization vanished before the Spanish could destroy it, had a positional-exponential numbering system, and were doing serious astronomy, and were on the way to a written language.)

As Che Guevara said, they discovered many things ... but not gunpowder. As a result, they were defeated by a more advanced civilization, and it has had devastating effects on most of their descendants.

Conquest and empire are human universals, including among the Native Americans. It's our common human heritage.

Slowly, we're overcoming it. No one would boast about torturing prisoners today. We live longer, and our next colonies will not be taken from more primitive peoples, but will be on the Moon, on Mars.

What Native Americans need to do is plunge headlong into the modern world. We need Native American electrical engineers, mathematicians, writers, entrepreneurs, computer programmers.

This doesn't mean giving up your culture and 'assimilating'. The Jews have shown how you can take part in, and excel in, the modern world, while retaining your cultural heritage.

This is what Native Americans should do. (By the way, my great-great-grandfather was Mosholtubee, chief of the Choctaws, who had to sign the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Hill, by which the Choctaws had all their tribal land taken away from them, and were put on the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma. (Whenever you can, spit in the face of man who is on the tThe whites thought Oklahoma was worthless, because the land was not as fertile as the land they stole from the Choctaws ... and ... in various places around the area, there was this nasty, stinky, sitcky black stuff oozing up from the ground... which in 1835 had only minor medicinal use. Ha ha ha!)

 

[Lastamender]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umm, that's not true.

Didja watch and listen to renowned election expert Ben Ginsberg's testimony before the J6 Committe in the June 13th hearing?
You should.

But lemme give the forum a taster. You can google up Ginsberg's bona fides. He's the real deal when it comes to election law and procedures. (I have highlighted --bold font ---that tesimony that is most relevant to this thread.)

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/13/1104690690/heres-every-word-of-the-second-jan-6-committee-hearing-on-its-investigation

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

ZOE LOFGREN: So are you aware of any instance in which a court found the Trump campaign's fraud claims to be credible?

BENJAMIN GINSBERG: No. There was — there was never that instance. In all the cases that were brought, and I've looked at the more than 60 that include more than 180 counts. And no, the simple fact is that the Trump campaign did not make its case.

ZOE LOFGREN: The Select Committee has identified 62 post-election lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and his allies between November 4th, 2020 and January 6th, 2021. Those cases resulted in 61 losses and only a single victory which actually didn't affect the outcome for either candidate. Despite those 61 losses, President Trump and his allies claim that the courts refused to hear them out and as a result they never had their day in court.

Mr. Ginsburg, what do you say about the claims that Mr. Trump wasn't given an opportunity to provide the evidence they had of voter fraud? Did they in fact — did they have their day in court?

BENJAMIN GINSBERG: They did have their day in court, About half of those cases that you mentioned were dismissed at the procedural stage for a lack of standing. The proper people didn't bring the case or there wasn't sufficient evidence and it got dismissed on a motion to dismiss. But in the other, there was discussion of the merits that was — that was contained in the complaints.

And in no instance did a court find that the charges of fraud were real. And it's also worth noting that even if the Trump campaign complained that it did not have its day in court, there have been post-election reviews in each of the six battleground states that could have made a difference. And those range from the somewhat farcical cyber ninjas case in Arizona to the Michigan Senate report that was mentioned earlier, the hand recount in Georgia that Mr. Pak addressed.

And in each one of those instances there was no credible evidence of fraud produced by the Trump campaign or his supporters.

ZOE LOFGREN: Thank you. You know, as Mr. Ginsburg has explained, there are no cases where the Trump campaign was able to convince a court that there was widespread fraud or irregularities in the 2020 election. Over and over judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans alike directly refuted this false narrative.

They called out the Trump campaign's lack of evidence for its claims. And the judges did that even in cases where they could have simply thrown out the lawsuit without writing a word. You can see behind me a few excerpts from the decisions in these 62 cases. The Trump campaign's lack of evidence was criticized by judges across the political spectrum.

In Pennsylvania, a Trump appointed judge concluded quote, "Charges require specific allegations and proof. We have neither here." Another Trump appointed judge warned that if cases like these succeeded, quote, "Any disappointed loser in a Presidential election able to hire a team of clever lawyers could flag claimed deviations from election results and cast doubt on election results." The list goes on and on. Allegations are called, quote, "An amalgamation of theories, conjecture, and speculation." In another strained legal arguments without merit, unsupported by evidence, derived from wholly unreliable sources, a fundamental and obvious misreading of the constitution.

The rejection of President Trump's litigation efforts was overwhelming. 22 federal judges appointed by Republican Presidents, including 10 appointed by President Trump himself and at least 24 elected or appointed Republican state judges dismissed the President's claims. At least 11 lawyers have been referred for disciplinary proceedings due to bad faith and baseless efforts to undermine the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election.

Shove anything from that committee straight up your ass. They were no evidentiary hearings. Period.

 

[White 6]

Shove anything from that committee straight up your ass. They were no evidentiary hearings. Period.

First you have to claim fraud or something in court before you can present evidence of it. The courthouse steps or on FOX NEWS doesn't count, unless only doing it for publicity to arouse the faithful instead of winning in a court of law.

In Court, Trump's Lawyers Aren't Claiming 'Massive' Fraud

While the President and his lawyers make histrionic claims in public, the campaign's legal filings are narrow in scope

time.com

 

[Doug1943]

If anyone is interested in numbers re 6 Jan., here are some from the FBI's latest press release:

In the 24 months since Jan. 6, 2021, more than 950 individuals have been arrested in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including over 284 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement. The investigation remains ongoing.

 

[Lastamender]

First you have to claim fraud or something in court before you can present evidence of it. The courthouse steps or on FOX NEWS doesn't count, unless only doing it for publicity to arouse the faithful instead of winning in a court of law.

In Court, Trump's Lawyers Aren't Claiming 'Massive' Fraud

While the President and his lawyers make histrionic claims in public, the campaign's legal filings are narrow in scope

time.com

Recycled bullshit to support your big lie. Nothing to see here but the reaction of obviously guilty.

 

[White 6]

Recycled bullshit to support your big lie. Nothing to see here but the reaction of obviously guilty.

Your lawyers, your claims. Next time get better representation or don't even go down that road. That wasn't recycled anything the date of that article was November 20, 2020. You and your lawyers had your sixty-something court appearence days in court, but every article points to the Trump lawyers refusing to charge widespread fraud without evidence, as the Republican Trump were unwilling to sacrifice their law careers with no evidence in front of a live judge in court, even Republican Judges appointed by Trump.

Trump Lawyer Admits to Judge: We're Not Alleging Fraud | Law & Crime

There's a big difference between a) waving around a stack of affidavits in a safe space and b) bringing your claims before a judge. We saw that difference on Tuesday in the Trump campaign's case in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

lawandcrime.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/14/most-remarkable-rebukes-trumps-legal-case-judges-he-hand-picked/

Trump Cries Voter Fraud. In Court, His Lawyers Don’t.

Under questioning from judges, at least two of the lawyers have backed away from suggestions the election was stolen or fraudulent. In other instances, attorneys have said under oath they have no evidence of fraud.

www.wsj.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judges-trump-election-lawsuits/2020/12/12/e3a57224-3a72-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html

Why Trump’s lawyers can lie to you but not to a judge

When it comes to the election fraud claims, watch what the lawyers do, not what they or the politicians say.

chicago.suntimes.com

In Trump election fraud cases, federal judges upheld the rule of law – but that’s not enough to fix US politics

President Trump’s populist control of his party didn’t extend to control in courtrooms where he challenged election results. That’s where the rules of politics met the rules of law, and politics lost.

theconversation.com

https://today.westlaw.com/Document/I97e9ff804fb211eb8404f825ce3db5c8/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

Trump's Own Lawyers Forced To Admit There's No Voter Fraud In Pennsylvania

During a court hearing, a judge pressed Trump's lawyers and got them to admit that they aren't challenging PA ballots for voter fraud.

www.politicususa.com

Trump Campaign Lawyer Tells PA Judge He Has 'No Knowledge' of Voter Fraud

An attorney representing Trump's campaign in one of several lawsuits challenging Pennsylvania's election results said ballot counting procedures in Montgomery County did not constitute fraud.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Chillicothe]

"Shove anything from that committee straight up your ass."

-----------------------------------------------------------
Well, let's not do that.

But your keyboard-enema tantrum is OK, poster Lastamender.
I'm accepting of your outburst. Not surprised by it. Kinda sorta expected it.
So we be cool.

Rather, truth be told.....I posted that long excerpt pulled from the June 13th J6 Hearing not for you (or your avatar). I long ago recognized that's pretty thin soil to grow any comprehension in.

Instead, I put it on the forum for others. The other posters who contribute here. To lurkers. The curious. Day-trippers. And Mods.

I put it out there ----with a link ----so that the next time the canard of "Didn't-Have-His Day-In-Court" pops up.....well, here is a source to go to. To de-bunk it.

By the way, the highlighted testimony of Ginsburg....is really relevant stuff. Tractionfull stuff, for our discussion.

Ginsburg is a giant in the election-law field. Much of his work helped Bush Jr. prevail over Gore in that hanging-chad election kerfuffle. With much important work before that and since that. (And not unimportantly, most all of it was on Republican efforts. He's considered a solid Republican operative.)

Accordingly, his testimony came freighted with experience, gravitas, and insight. And he presented it that way. He was serious minded, no-nonsense, just-the-facts-Ma'am credible.

So, at the end of this exchange, good poster Lastamender, know that my own avatar tends to believe that Benjamin Ginsburg has a great deal more chops than your anonymous opinion --- hiding behind a fake name.

No disrespect intended.

 

[Doug1943]

The problem is, good patriots want to believe that the election was stolen. It's hard for them to believe that all the support at rallies shown for Mr Trump, and the lackluster rallies for Mr Biden ... didn't translate into votes.

More importantly, Mr Trump emerged at just the right time, and has become the focus of a deep sea change in the base (but not the top) of the Republican Party.

Forever, going back, the Republicans have been the Chamber of Commerce party, the Military-Industrial Complex party. The party of the solid middle class.

The Democrats represented various urban commercial interests, but mainly, the folks further down the social scale. (Including in the South, and including their social values, which the Democrats today find a bit embarrassing.)

This is the way politics is in all countries lucky enough not to have signficant tribal diversity: the Successful vs the Unsuccessful, usually represented as Right vs Left. (In countries cursed with significant tribal diversity, politics tends to split along ethnic lines, until the tribes go to war with each other.)

There is a lot of social mobility in the US, and it's also the case that people who are in the middle class, but insulated from raw economic reality by well-paid salaried jobs, can afford to be more 'liberal', ie lean to the Left. So the lower-to-middle class, middle-to-upper class political split has always been a bit muddled in America.

America's unique position in the world -- at the top of the heap ---- due to its extraordinarily-fortunate geographical position and endowment, and its particular history in being settled by hardworking immigrants -- meant that the American working class never developed the class consciousness of the working classes in other countries -- so the Left/Right division was not as tense.

Things looked like moving in the 'European' direction in the 1930s, but WWII, and our victory, and then the Cold War, put an end to that.

Now things are changing. The white working class has moved away from the Democrats. , for variois reasons, but their economic condition is the main one. They haven't really moved 'Right' on social issues -- they don't want to aboiish the minimum wage or Social Security or Workmen's Comp. And if Mr Trump had announced a national health care plan identical to, or even more radical than, ObamaCare, they would have gone for it in a flash.

But the Republican Party apparatus is still pretty much the same: neo-connish in foreign policy, although a bit more cautious ... pro-business in politics. (Which means that although they have to appease their voters, they also have to appease the Donor Class -- and some of the latter really want to ship their factories to Mexico or bring in illegal, union-proof Mexican labor.)

For a while, the Republicans could keep them happy by screaming 'Gay Marriage'. But not forever. And then ... along came Mr Trump. Not buyable, because he was a buyer. Not a slick professional politician. And someone who evidently really did get upset at seeing America's decline. But also a narcissist of the first order, and not very sophisticated politically, to put it politely.

He quickly became the focus of the intense loyalty of most of the Republican base. He still is. Whatever he says, is believed. The Right -- those who see what is coming, and what we therefore must do now to prepare -- have to work in his shadow. We need to transform the Republican Party ... not with Trump loyalists and/or loons, but with serious patriots. We won't really be abe to move forward until he is no longer on the scene.

No the election was not stolen. No the Covid vaccine is not a plot by the World Economic Forum to depopulate the world. No, the Rothschilds are not deliberately going to crash the economy. No, the CIA did not kill Kennedy. Our people will learn this, eventually, or move to a point where these beliefs won't matter. Speed the day.