|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:Even if he truly believed he had won the election, he would have broken the law by inciting an insurrection. Like the legal system does not, to my knowledge, grant exceptions for crimes committed in response to other crimes. If Trump was correct and the election was stolen from him, then it would not change the fact he broke the law. The only thing Trump's understanding of who won in 2020 changes is what, exactly, laws he broke, not whether or not he broke the law. I think the case is pretty strong that his ellipse speech isn't protected by free speech based on the totality of the evidence, but again, it's not a slam dunk case and there's enough wriggle room that if a jury can't convict he'll see it as complete exoneration.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
Jefferson Davis was never convicted of anything!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 14:32
|
|
|
slurm posted:Jefferson Davis was never convicted of anything! And the confederacy lives on to this day. What a loving mistake that was. We probably shouldn't make that mistake again or chuds will be flying thin blue line and Trump flags 150 years from now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 14:37
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:Even if he truly believed he had won the election, he would have broken the law by inciting an insurrection. Like the legal system does not, to my knowledge, grant exceptions for crimes committed in response to other crimes. If Trump was correct and the election was stolen from him, then it would not change the fact he broke the law. The only thing Trump's understanding of who won in 2020 changes is what, exactly, laws he broke, not whether or not he broke the law. Most of the relevant laws they’re trying to charge him with, like anything with “conspiracy to” in it, specifically require “corrupt intent”. The prosecution has to actually show believed he was doing a crime and it’s been a major problem that he might have a legit defense of being too dumb. So no, it actually matters a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:And the confederacy lives on to this day. What a loving mistake that was. We probably shouldn't make that mistake again or chuds will be flying thin blue line and Trump flags 150 years from now. This guy hates flags!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The “why even have laws or processes? Just snatch people off the street when you’ve got some authority” people seem to be missing the point of why we don’t want Trump running things. I don't think the discussion is over whether we should have laws at all or not, or whether we should just black bag people without due process. Seems to me the discussion is over whether there actually is a process leading carefully and inexorably toward a conviction, or whether that's just cope for Trump continuing to walk around a free man and starting his reelection campaign >2 years after trying to overthrow the government despite years of being told the walls are closing in. It's 2023, the first primaries are slightly less than a year away. When exactly is the vaunted process supposed to bear fruit? Before the primaries? After? Before the inauguration? By the end of Trump's second term? A posthumous conviction by historians? Idk I know the myth of time and the long arc of history are the usual explanations for why things must wait for some ineffable Later, but man you know it kinda seems like this one's on a timer, what are we gonna do if Trump wins the presidency again. Does anyone in power have a plan for that, what happens to The Process then? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Jan 31, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Most of the relevant laws they’re trying to charge him with, like anything with “conspiracy to” in it, specifically require “corrupt intent”. The prosecution has to actually show believed he was doing a crime and it’s been a major problem that he might have a legit defense of being too dumb. Conspiracy to incite a riot or insurrection isn't a crime if you believe it's in response to a stolen election? Like I'm not being facetious here, I'm genuinely asking. Because my understanding is that vigilantism is illegal even when it is correct. If you believe your neighbor to be a pedophile, correctly, and so beat the poo poo out of him when you see him speaking to a child, that's still a crime as I understand it. If the 2020 election was stolen, the correct response is not to incite a violent uprising or to try and bully governors into fabricating votes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:Conspiracy to incite a riot or insurrection isn't a crime if you believe it's in response to a stolen election? Like I'm not being facetious here, I'm genuinely asking. Because my understanding is that vigilantism is illegal even when it is correct. If you believe your neighbor to be a pedophile, correctly, and so beat the poo poo out of him when you see him speaking to a child, that's still a crime as I understand it. I know more about the seditious conspiracy charge because that seems to be the most primary, but at least going by any of the actual lawyers I've read/listened to : yes. "I legit thought the election was stolen" could be a valid defense in court, and he could try to show that it was a sincere belief (because he's a dumb dumb). The line wouldn't be "...and therefore we went to war with the federal government" it would be how they tried to do things legally and things aww shucks happened to get out of hand. It's why having all of the testimony of people in the White House has been so important because now we have direct evidence that Trump knew he lost and was doing it anyway. It's why we've been dicking around for this whole investigation, because it's actually necessary. The big reason why I have no patience for the "nothing matters" crowd is that in general they have no clue what's actually going on with the investigation and haven't even bothered to look at the (publicly available) legal code or watch an interview with an actual lawyer going through things ; it's a frustrating conversation because even if it's a good faith position it's inherently couched in ignorance and incredulity rather than actual nuance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:The big reason why I have no patience for the "nothing matters" crowd is that in general they have no clue what's actually going on with the investigation and haven't even bothered to look at the (publicly available) legal code or watch an interview with an actual lawyer going through things ; it's a frustrating conversation because even if it's a good faith position it's inherently couched in ignorance and incredulity rather than actual nuance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 20:33
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I know more about the seditious conspiracy charge because that seems to be the most primary, but at least going by any of the actual lawyers I've read/listened to : yes. "I legit thought the election was stolen" could be a valid defense in court, and he could try to show that it was a sincere belief (because he's a dumb dumb). The line wouldn't be "...and therefore we went to war with the federal government" it would be how they tried to do things legally and things aww shucks happened to get out of hand. Scanning post for evidence of something mattering. 0 results detected. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I know more about the seditious conspiracy charge because that seems to be the most primary, but at least going by any of the actual lawyers I've read/listened to : yes. "I legit thought the election was stolen" could be a valid defense in court, and he could try to show that it was a sincere belief (because he's a dumb dumb). The line wouldn't be "...and therefore we went to war with the federal government" it would be how they tried to do things legally and things aww shucks happened to get out of hand. Sure, but, like, what's your definition of "mattering" here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
mutata posted:Sure, but, like, what's your definition of "mattering" here? See, that's why I semi-sarcastically asked that question. What is the point of this discussion about whether something "matters"? Obviously I hate Trump and want him to face severe repercussions for his actions. But his crimes are unique for a variety of reasons and prosecuting a former president who is actively trying to run for a second term is a very complicated and hard problem without precedent in the justice system. It exposes a bunch of flaws, both the kind that people have known about for ages and completely novel ones, and we don't have solutions to this. But actually fixing problems means we have to know what's going wrong. Throwing your hands up and shouting, "None of this matters!" isn't helpful. Even if the solution is to burn the whole system down and make a new one, we still need to understand what went wrong if we're to not repeat the same mistakes. When I asked the "nothing matters" crew what mattering meant, all I got was a bunch of snarky rephrases that were equally weaselly and undefined. "Trump needs to face consequences" doesn't mean anything for how we actually fix the problem. Everyone defaulted to saying "You know what I mean, 'consequences'." No, I loving don't know, define your terms. They're your terms.. Is that going to prison? House arrest? You wanna bring back the pillory? Asking someone to clarify their intent shouldn't be a gotcha question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
An additional thing is that the "Nothing Matters" crew has made confident predictions that were proved completely wrong, and then just kind of... skipped over that with no reflection on whether that reflected poorly on their model of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:An additional thing is that the "Nothing Matters" crew has made confident predictions that were proved completely wrong, and then just kind of... skipped over that with no reflection on whether that reflected poorly on their model of the world. This is called a Strawman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 00:04
|
|
|
mutata posted:This is called a Strawman. Do you actually want me to trawl through old threads to find a dozen "Pelosi will never impeach Trump, this is all theater nothing matters lol" posts? Or "The committee will never recommend charges." posts? These are things anyone with a working memory can recall pretty easily.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 00:15
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:But actually fixing problems means we have to know what's going wrong. Throwing your hands up and shouting, "None of this matters!" isn't helpful. Even if the solution is to burn the whole system down and make a new one, we still need to understand what went wrong if we're to not repeat the same mistakes. Oh, gently caress off, I gave a clear set of definitions, no snark, no weaseling, and you completely ignored them, and I explicitly included evidence for any kind of major systemic reform that would reduce the chance of this happening again as "mattering" so your bullshit claim that we should be focusing on fixing the problems is even more asinine as a counterpoint. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 01:26
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Oh, gently caress off, I gave a clear set of definitions, no snark, no weaseling, and you completely ignored them, and I explicitly included evidence for any kind of major systemic reform that would reduce the chance of this happening again as "mattering" so your bullshit claim that we should be focusing on fixing the problems is even more asinine as a counterpoint. Gender-neutral version of sir, I think you might need to do a better job reading usernames. Xiahou Dun fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Feb 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 02:53
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Do you actually want me to trawl through old threads to find a dozen "Pelosi will never impeach Trump, this is all theater nothing matters lol" posts? Or "The committee will never recommend charges." posts? These are things anyone with a working memory can recall pretty easily. At it's most elemental level though, the point of "the mattering" is the moment when Donald Trump will irrevocably be unable to cause any more harm to the United States and by extension the entire planet Earth and no law enforcement entity in the US or abroad appears, at this moment still, ready, willing, or able to make that moment a reality. So the real "mattering" moment remains and has a very strong chance of remaining "the moment Donald Trump dies of natural causes" and nothing less.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 03:05
|
|
|
TBF the events of the past couple years can't be great for his ticker
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 05:13
|
|
|
Xand_Man posted:TBF the events of the past couple years can't be great for his ticker his general physical condition is so absolutely bizarre to me that i wouldn't be surprised if somehow he's stronger, like a saruman or something
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 05:29
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:At it's most elemental level though, the point of "the mattering" is the moment when Donald Trump will irrevocably be unable to cause any more harm to the United States and by extension the entire planet Earth and no law enforcement entity in the US or abroad appears, at this moment still, ready, willing, or able to make that moment a reality. So the real "mattering" moment remains and has a very strong chance of remaining "the moment Donald Trump dies of natural causes" and nothing less. Assuming you're not implying they should effect the latter, that's because "no law enforcement entity in the US or abroad" has such a power. There is no prosecutorial way to prevent Trump from getting elected again, except to indict and convict him on treason. Which is something that basically no one ever gets charged with, let alone found guilty, because it's effectively impossible to convict for treason under the US Constitution, by design.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 05:53
|
|
|
to much q_q-ing about "mattering" it's easy to see why the fascists keep winning UGH NO ONE IS COMING TO SAVE ME!!! WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS OURSELVES!11 WAHHHHHh
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 06:25
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Assuming you're not implying they should effect the latter, that's because "no law enforcement entity in the US or abroad" has such a power. There is no prosecutorial way to prevent Trump from getting elected again, except to indict and convict him on treason. Which is something that basically no one ever gets charged with, let alone found guilty, because it's effectively impossible to convict for treason under the US Constitution, by design. Welcome to Team Nothing Matters, then! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 06:26
|
|
|
mutata posted:Welcome to Team Nothing Matters, then! Uh, if for some reason I decided to adopt your bar of "Donald Trump is dead or tried and convicted of treason by the DOJ", sure. Why is that the one and only definition of The Mattering you will accept
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 07:08
|
|
|
I will accept the below definition of mattering. If you're telling me that there's no chance in hell of this happening, then you and I are in agreement. The real question is why would ANYONE accept anything less than this? Pretty silly stuff! nine-gear crow posted:At it's most elemental level though, the point of "the mattering" is the moment when Donald Trump will irrevocably be unable to cause any more harm to the United States and by extension the entire planet Earth and no law enforcement entity in the US or abroad appears, at this moment still, ready, willing, or able to make that moment a reality. So the real "mattering" moment remains and has a very strong chance of remaining "the moment Donald Trump dies of natural causes" and nothing less. Fuschia tude posted:Uh, if for some reason I decided to adopt your bar of "Donald Trump is dead or tried and convicted of treason by the DOJ", sure. Why is the bare minimum of justice the only mattering I'll accept? I'm afraid I don't understand the question. mutata fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Feb 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 07:18
|
|
|
Xand_Man posted:TBF the events of the past couple years can't be great for his ticker It’s impossible to tell because he’s hiding any medical conditions in addition to makeup, tanning, and fake hair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 07:25
|
|
|
Well they could put Trump in prison, surely that's not beyond prosecutorial power. It wouldn't make it impossible for him to run and win, but it would make it a lot less likely, and it would be a deterrent to a future politician trying the same gambit, or at least more of a deterrent than watching Trump get off scott free. Why exactly should we be satisfied with less than that? Is a small fine and shutting down a couple of Trump's sham charities supposed to make the next guy think twice before having a try at installing himself president?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 07:42
|
|
|
mutata posted:I will accept the below definition of mattering. If you're telling me that there's no chance in hell of this happening, then you and I are in agreement. Hell, honestly it doesn't even have to be "dead" or "in prison for the rest of his life". Really it's down to whatever you define as the moment where Donald Trump "goes away and never comes back or is otherwise never able to harm anyone or get away with another crime ever again", including straying into the realm of magical thinking to cross that threshold like that article that was posted yesterday of all those Republicans wishing on their birthday candles that Donald Trump would just disappear into thin air. That's what "the mattering" is and always will be. There's a reason I keep repeating the phrase "until you or he dies, whatever comes first", because it's true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 08:05
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:Conspiracy to incite a riot or insurrection isn't a crime if you believe it's in response to a stolen election? Like I'm not being facetious here, I'm genuinely asking. Because my understanding is that vigilantism is illegal even when it is correct. If you believe your neighbor to be a pedophile, correctly, and so beat the poo poo out of him when you see him speaking to a child, that's still a crime as I understand it. This is where I harp on about the wriggle room. I'm almost certain Trump wanted a violent uprising at the Ellipse. But he never told anyone else. He used careful language he hoped would communicate his intentions, he use incendiary language in his speech with carefully peppered in bits of "peacefully march" and then sent them off. It can't be a conspiracy to yadda-yadda if he never actually communicates his intentions in any concrete way. This doesn't mean I think his Ellipse speech is protected speech; there's a bunch of reasons I'd argue it wasn't, but if you're going to indict him based solely on the speech that's a huge bar to overcome. Unless of course Trump used Roger Stone to coordinate everything with the Proud Boys and we just need to waterboard him to get access to it all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 11:03
|
|
|
V-Men posted:This is where I harp on about the wriggle room. I'm almost certain Trump wanted a violent uprising at the Ellipse. But he never told anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 11:42
|
|
|
Dammit, i meant to say that he didn't communicate it the mobs that attacked the capitol outside of his tweets and speeches and they didn't communicate an understanding back that he received and understood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 12:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well they could put Trump in prison, surely that's not beyond prosecutorial power. I mean technically speaking all the prosecution can do is set charges and bail and even if they tried to say no bail, they have no control over whether the judge will accept that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 13:59
|
|
|
V-Men posted:Dammit, i meant to say that he didn't communicate it the mobs that attacked the capitol outside of his tweets and speeches and they didn't communicate an understanding back that he received and understood. Truly a confederacy of dunces.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 14:06
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I mean technically speaking all the prosecution can do is set charges and bail and even if they tried to say no bail, they have no control over whether the judge will accept that. Nobody was saying a prosecutor can unilaterally sentence someone but I think you knew that
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 14:41
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I mean technically speaking all the prosecution can do is set charges and bail and even if they tried to say no bail, they have no control over whether the judge will accept that. The prosecution is generally a little bit more involved in sending people to prison than you're implying here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 15:07
|
|
|
I think the psychological effect of Trump lurking will be around until he dies, or is placed under house arrest during a coup. He will still loom, and have a dedicated base of mujahadeen who won’t stop posting, and his words will be repeated as they are now, endlessly and analyzed endlessly on any news outlet that is for-profit, so all of them. This feeling will probably never go away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:And the confederacy lives on to this day. What a loving mistake that was. We probably shouldn't make that mistake again or chuds will be flying thin blue line and Trump flags 150 years from now. Every single one of those fuckers should have been hung after the war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 19:03
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Every single one of those fuckers should have been hung after the war. Hey, don’t even joke about that. It’s “hanged”. Laundry is “hung”.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 19:04
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Hey, don’t even joke about that. It's only 'hanged' if it's from the Nuremburg region in Germany.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
One thing I can speculate about the average MAGA chud is that they're not "hung"
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2023 22:27
|
|
