|
Main Paineframe posted:Why do you think that? I don't really see how that would be the case. He'll become a martyr, and his supporters will endlessly decry the injustices imposed on him by biased Democrats and the evil deep state. It'd make him a hero and forever immortalize him in fascist thought. The actual real Constitution and founding of the country are predicated on a collection of higher principles, enlightenment if you will, and the violation of those principles is the much greater crime that it is our duty to see those principles restored and upheld. The facist pockets have already been granted their rights to peaceably assemble and speak their minds, but those very same rights do not offer them liberty to attack the rights of other citizens nor the sovereignty of the state (that granted them the loving rights in the first place). This isn't about one group whining or deciding to off a few sinner Americans or stuck up capitalists. It's about facts, the truth, and the law. If the United States of America cannot uphold the law, the country will be lawless. Those loud supporters that would decry a guilty verdict? If the government just does a "shrug, let's move on", those supporters will be the first at state capitols, legislatures, and courts, dragging Democrats, rinos, and anyone perceived to not be a "true believer" onto the streets and into the peoples' gallows.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 07:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
Reporters this morning are confirming there are no pre-established limits on the questions Cippollone will face today. He can try to assert privilege but after so many public witnesses have put words in his mouth (...the blood will be on your loving hands...that letter is a murder-suicide pact) and described actions he took, but I think he'd be crazy to hold back anything he doesn't have some kind of privilege over. I also think the crime-fraud exception to those limits means in this case it's time to give up on that kind of stupid poo poo. And they are also saying next Thursday we could be seeing his taped testimony.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
I have not had the spoons to keep up with these, is there a good place for a synopsis so far?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
Karma Comedian posted:I have not had the spoons to keep up with these, is there a good place for a synopsis so far? Donald Trump is guilty as poo poo. Also he threw a Big Mac against the wall on a porcelain plate in the White House dining room in a fit of rage and tried to choke out a secret service member.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:Reporters this morning are confirming there are no pre-established limits on the questions Cippollone will face today. He can try to assert privilege but after so many public witnesses have put words in his mouth (...the blood will be on your loving hands...that letter is a murder-suicide pact) and described actions he took, but I think he'd be crazy to hold back anything he doesn't have some kind of privilege over. I also think the crime-fraud exception to those limits means in this case it's time to give up on that kind of stupid poo poo. They already know what answers he is going to give to questions, because he's a former WH Counsel and presumably may be able to tie his shoes correctly, and therefore has certainly already spoken with them about the scope and tenor of his testimony. The Thursday primetime hearing got scheduled after that conversation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
mdemone posted:They already know what answers he is going to give to questions, because he's a former WH Counsel and presumably may be able to tie his shoes correctly, and therefore has certainly already spoken with them about the scope and tenor of his testimony.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 16:32
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I get that it's harder, in principle. And what I'm pointing out is that it's never easy, and that you're vastly underestimating just how specific and constrained the requirements of the Treason Clause are. For example, there is actual Supreme Court precedent (Ex Parte Bollman and US v Aaron Burr) saying that actively recruiting an army to overthrow the US government is not sufficient to sustain a treason conviction: it wasn't overt enough an act, and didn't constitute an actual "levying of war". When I say that no prosecutor will risk using the Treason Act against an actual current threat, poo poo like that is why. As far as I can tell, no one has ever been executed under the Treason Clause of the US Constitution. Though several US citizens who defected to the Germans or Japanese during WWII were convicted of Constitutional treason after WWII, none were executed. And while several people were executed for treasonous behavior during and immediately after the Civil War, they were convicted and executed by military tribunals under military law. Other famed treason executions, like John Brown, were done under state treason laws rather than federal. And of course there's people like the Rosenbergs who, despite being executed, were never charged with treason at all - other laws not subject to the same Constitutional restrictions were more than sufficient to put them to death. Uglycat posted:Certainly the standard should be very high; but if there is no standard that can be met, why make it a crime at all? In any case, while you might advocate for treason not being a crime punishable by death - it is on the books. If they joined a foreign military that was actively at war with the US, and then helped that military force in their war against the US, they could be charged with treason no problem. If they raised an actual military force and sent it to engage in an actual shooting war against the US military, as Jefferson Davis did then they could probably be reliably charged with treason. That's about it. Trump's actions may qualify, but it's not guaranteed that it would - there's some ambiguity, and when it comes to Treason Clause jurisprudence, ambiguity generally means "assume it doesn't qualify". Besides, charging a current politician with a tightly-defined Constitutional crime is basically inviting the Supreme Court to get involved, and no sane prosecutor should want that given that Trump personally appointed one-third of the Court's current members. As for why treason requirements are so hard to meet, it's a consequence of the English common law tradition, where creative prosecutors and compliant judges had been quite successful in expanding the definition of "treason" to something quite broad. At the time the Constitution was written, actions that could get an Englishman executed for high treason included counterfeiting money, killing a judge, or having sex with the king's wife. And that doesn't even include things like petty treason, which was essentially an enhanced murder charge for those who killed people immediately above them in the social structures of the day (for example, a wife killing a husband, or a servant killing a master). Moreover, to allow for new and novel types of treason that didn't exist when the Treason Act was put to paper in 1351 (!), if a judge thought something should be treason even though it wasn't, they had the ability to put the trial on pause and refer the matter to the King and Parliament to have them decide whether to pass a new treason law for it. That generally expansive view of treason was not popular among the general populace, and the American colonists inherited that distaste for English treason law. As such, the writers of the Constitution wanted to make absolutely sure the expansion of treason's definition didn't happen here, by firmly establishing tight and well-defined limits without even a hint of flexibility. There was an active effort to prevent prosecutors and political factions from having even the slightest flexibility that might allow them to create what Madison derisively called "new-fangled and artificial treasons". As such, the Treason Clause is pretty much entirely restrained to the worst and most blatant cases possible. And when I say "worst and most blatant", think Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee, not Donald Trump. PhantomOfTheCopier posted:That seems rather circular to me. "If he's held accountable for crimes committed (I don't claim here what those might be), his supporters will claim with hunts and conspiracy and immortalize him as neoHitler". On the other hand, "If he's not held accountable for crimes committed, his supporters will claim See this was all a witch hunt and conspiracy! then immortalize him as neoHitler". Nah, I'm saying that execution specifically will martyr him and empower his followers. The movement doesn't need him anymore, there's plenty of people who'll happily take his place as leader of the new fascist movement if the opportunity arises. It's honestly inconvenient for them to have him still farting around, throwing endorsements wherever he likes and screaming into the void on Truth Social. Putting him in prison where he can't go out and personally rally the crowds, but is still able to muddle conservative politics through middlemen, is far better than letting DeSantis frame himself as the inheritor of Trump's will and the avenger who will wreak vengeance on liberals for the unjust judicial murder of Donald J Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 17:26
|
|
|
I can't find the article, but Bigly boi is extremely Not Mad about Pat Cippelone testifying. He's going off about how it is a violation of sacred duty to the President or some poo poo and "how can any President do things secretly and corruptly ever again?"  Don't do crimes rear end in a top hat? TulliusCicero fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jul 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:Donald Trump is guilty as poo poo. I knew that quote:
Lmao I didn't know that
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
Karma Comedian posted:I knew that When he failed to death-choke the secret service agent because lol he instead tried to hijack one of the presidential SUVs by reaching for the steering wheel from the backseat so he could turn the van around
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
ElegantFugue posted:When he failed to death-choke the secret service agent because lol he instead tried to hijack one of the presidential SUVs by reaching for the steering wheel from the backseat so he could turn the van around He was then restrained by the remaining USSS detail in the SUV and driven back to the White House like a toddler having a very kicky, screamy temper tantrum and sent to his room because he was a very bad boy who just knowingly told an angry and armed mob to go murder his vice president and most of congress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
An American coup: burgers thrown and tantrums had
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
Hm. Not sure what to make of this other than I'd be surprised if they said no to this. https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/1545435416492249089?s=21&t=TPZMR2xFpAR_jjvF1MuFiA
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:Hm. Not sure what to make of this other than I'd be surprised if they said no to this. The part that makes me nervous is the 'broadcast live' portion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:Hm. Not sure what to make of this other than I'd be surprised if they said no to this. Maybe he wants to sabotage the hearings? Or has he been cooperating before?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
Cimber posted:The part that makes me nervous is the 'broadcast live' portion. Getting serious Bud Dwyer vibes. (yes I know that would be impossible)
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 19:35
|
|
|
It means he wants to go full sovcit and poo poo up thr hearings and mo they shouldn't allow it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 19:37
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Maybe he wants to sabotage the hearings? Or has he been cooperating before? Not sure how he could; they have full control of the format and could shut him down/ have him removed at any time. I think it's more a "oh poo poo if I don't do something I'm going to spend the rest of my life in federal prison for sedition, and my God Emperor has done less than nothing to help me" hail mary-plea deal. I doubt he has any new information, but if it's something juicy like "Trump allies personally helped us plan the attack" then that would be worth hearing live. Would be surprised if they haven't already squeezed him for everything already though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
There is no way they allow him to testify live unless they already interviewed him and had his answers to all the questions they wanted to ask on tape. Even then, if there was any chance that he'd poo poo things up on TV, they'd politely decline since they would have then had everything they needed. Saying he will only testify live is a red flag saying he intends to say stupid poo poo that they don't want on TV.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
They haven't squeezed OK dry yet. Proud Boys are basically a wrap but they'll never let Rhodes speak live without knowing what he'll say
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Probably just use it as a soapbox to talk about how the government is bringing in illegals and killing white babies or some poo poo. I would be reluctant about giving shitheads platforms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Probably just use it as a soapbox to talk about how the government is bringing in illegals and killing white babies or some poo poo. I would be reluctant about giving shitheads platforms. Yeah this does nothing but raise the profile of Proud Boys as being Very Serious and Important and he would 100% use it to grandstand his awful nazi viewpoints. It's a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
her reasoning: but yeah 0% they actually should let him testify while broadcasted live, gently caress that on every level
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
Not for nothing, but anyone who think that Donald Trump is going to be convicted of treason and sentenced to death needs to really rethink things, check themselves and take a look at how things really work in this lovely country. I hope that certain posters throwing that poo poo out there are merely being hyperbolic and attempting to apply the letter of the law to this situation instead of making serious posts because come the gently caress on. And as much as I loathe Donald Trump, I still don't support murder - state sanctioned or otherwise - and the death penalty for anything can gently caress right off. My point is, let's be realistic here. I'll be very pleasantly surprised if Trump is charged with anything (state or federal charges), let alone being convicted or especially ever seeing the inside of a prison cell for any reason whatsoever. Not saying he shouldn't, mind you, but none of that is ever going to happen. Donald Trump is rich and the only people who can make any of this take place are democrats and, well, we know how good they are at doing loving anything whatsoever. The absolute 100% upside I can imagine here is MAYBE him being ruled ineligible to run for POTUS again, but I aint holding my breath there either. And he'd run anyway. Like someone else pointed out, if the book is thrown at him and any of it sticks, it's a partisan witch hunt and further evidence of the deep state. If he's acquitted or not charged, then he was innocent all along from the same witch hunt. Doesn't matter that he is, in fact, a witch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Not for nothing, but anyone who think that Donald Trump is going to be convicted of treason and sentenced to death needs to really rethink things, check themselves and take a look at how things really work in this lovely country. Oh you don't know who Uglycat is? I even like the guy but hyperbole is kinda his thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:her reasoning: She is solely focused only on what might help the prosecution get everyone for every crime they can. Like she's in a courtroom and only has to worry about the court reporters and the bored old local gadflys who decided to spend their time watching court that day. She is ignoring the political and non-legal damage that could be done in the country by making GBS threads up the 1/6 committee which could then indirectly impact any possible prosecution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 20:42
|
|
|
Rigel posted:She is solely focused only on what might help the prosecution get everyone for every crime they can. Like she's in a courtroom and only has to worry about the court reporters and the bored old local gadflys who decided to spend their time watching court that day. Well, if they keep him on a very short leash, have other witnesses lined up after him and yank him off stage if he even starts to poo poo on everything immediately it might be worthwhile. Then charge him with obstruction of congress and other crimes specifically for that stunt if he does need to get yanked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:Would be surprised if they haven't already squeezed him for everything already though. He's apparently pled the fifth to the Committee so far. But that's the rub, isn't it? In a way the live broadcasts aren't that much of a legal proceeding in that the Committee itself isn't gaining new information from it -- that's all been extracted well before the live hearings so they're legally redundant. Their impact is in disseminating information to the public, goading others into testifying, and if witnesses decide to perjure themselves live then that's just great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
"He's already being platformed by sympathetic media so really it's NBD if we platform him in a congressional hearing" is certainly a big brain take
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:06
|
|
|
Rigel posted:She is solely focused only on what might help the prosecution get everyone for every crime they can. Like she's in a courtroom and only has to worry about the court reporters and the bored old local gadflys who decided to spend their time watching court that day. For the record, I think giving him a platform is god drat terrible idea and nowhere near worth it. However, if they were struck by some fit of madness and decided to do it, I'm assuming they'd still be smart enough to interpret "live" as "with a substantial delay" such that they can cut him the gently caress off. Like, everything already has some delay built in, but this would be much, much, much more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:"He's already being platformed by sympathetic media so really it's NBD if we platform him in a congressional hearing" is certainly a big brain take Eh, I can certainly see why "I'll incriminate myself, but only on live TV" is an offer that gives mixed feelings. But there's no reason to demand that if you're planning to be useful and not disruptive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Eh, I can certainly see why "I'll incriminate myself, but only on live TV" is an offer that gives mixed feelings. But there's no reason to demand that if you're planning to be useful and not disruptive. Yes there is. It's so you can get the platform.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:16
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:"He's already being platformed by sympathetic media so really it's NBD if we platform him in a congressional hearing" is certainly a big brain take You should probably read the final one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:Not sure how he could; they have full control of the format and could shut him down/ have him removed at any time. If he just wanted to cover his own rear end, he could do it like everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:You should probably read the final one. You should probably engage with what I wrote. "For those concerned...." imlies she doesn't think it's a bad idea for that reason, even if she ultimately says she doesn't want him up there. She has the right conclusion but also has a bad take.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
what is there to engage with you literally just said that it's a big brain take and nothing else lol. she goes on to address and more or less refute that a moment later
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Merrillmarkoe/status/1541873399328145408
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:what is there to engage with you literally just said that it's a big brain take and nothing else lol You literally said "read the tweets" and nothing else. Allow me to clarify: The tweet that responds to concerns about platforming an unstable neo-nazi with the counter of "but he's already being platformed" is naive, because as she says, he's being platformed on sympathetic media. Sympathetic media is talking to people who already are fine with what he says. Platforming him in a congressional hearing is a significantly different setting and raises his profile and the profile of the group. It's a very naive take unless you don't understand why people are concerned with the idea of "platforming" fascists in the first place. I'd imagine you already know all this but thought that "but in the end she doesn't want him on the stand" means I can't criticize bad posts for being bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 22:02
|
|
|
I will go inform one of the main recognized experts on american neonazis that she is naive about the dangers of platforming neonazis. Her feeling seems to be that he's actually too unstable to be effective in any way and is liable to be a shitshow (or more likely a sideshow) and counterproductive to whatever goal he'd turn up with. Also almost certainly a liability to any goals of the committee. 'yes please' appears to be because she thinks it would be entertaining, not something that is good that should happen or has almost any chance of actually happening
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:20 |
|
|
January 6 Hearings: Mr. Sip Bologna
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2022 22:53
|
|
