State judges are not removed by the executive branch:

Judges of the court of appeals and justices of the supreme court may be removed by concurrent resolution of both houses of the legislature, if two-thirds of all the members elected to each house concur therein.
Judges of the court of claims, the county court, the surrogate's court, the family court, the courts for the city of New York established pursuant to section fifteen of this article, the district court and such other courts as the legislature may determine may be removed by the senate, on the recommendation of the governor, if two-thirds of all the members elected to the senate concur therein. — New York Constitution Article VI - Judiciary Section 23 - Removal of judges

Federal judges are removed thusly:

Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Judges and Justices serve no fixed term — they serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate. By design, this insulates them from the temporary passions of the public, and allows them to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns. — Article III of the Constitution

This intrepid band of Culture Warriors are a vital component of the coalition supporting Trump but does not represent the animus of those willing to break the law. The "stand back but stand by" rhetoric is still alive in Trump's speaking of pardoning January 6 participants.

The rhetoric being used is a tug of war between two camps. The poo-pooing of alarmed Liberals as suffering Trump Derangement Syndrome is straight from the Fox News normalization of MAGA. But the language of being completely dominated by an ideological regime has that Confederate tang you want in an energy drink. — Paine

Yes good points. It is the frog being boiled slowly with ever higher temperature increases. It is the dog whistles and winking nods and the suggestive language. It is the tactic of lawyer tricks. It's all about getting away with technicalities so one can always hedge and say the audience is just misinterpreting or reading too much into it. The difference between a January 6th and something like the DNC headquarters being inundated with extremist pro-Palestine protestors is that Biden (clearly) isn't encouraging these behaviors. It's the same reason (among many others) for why that pathetic Churchill analogy wasn't adequate. Rather, it is intentionally using fascist language. He was reading it off a teleprompter. Whoever helped him write that knew the rhetoric. There is a reason he put "fascists" amidst the Marxists and communists. Plausible deniability. "How can I be promoting fascist language if I said I would root out the fascists". Who does that actually work on? Also, what kind of fascists is he referring to? Is he meaning, "Woke fascists"? If that's the case, then again, it can always be sidestepped as being overmined, misinterpreted, Trump Derangement Syndrome. This is political gaslighting at its finest.

I was not speaking about judges.

so .... just the same things trump did then right? Is that bad?

On the one hand I'd implore you tell me in your own words what was wrong with Trump's speech, but on the other hand I don't need you to because I know what you're going to say. — NOS4A2

I followed the trail back a bit, and it appears you're referring to his 1/6 speech. If so, it's a red herring. The context is relevant: Trump had been publicly proclaiming the election was stolen since the election night, which ginned up anger in his supporters - including the crazy and violent, like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys (remember Trump's callout to them during a debate: "stand back and stand by"). They took him seriously then and when he invited his angered supporters to D.C. "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" This was despite the fact he'd been told by DOJ leadership, and White House Counsel the fraud allegations were bogus.

The Colorado 14th Amendment judgement has come down - Colorado judge rules Trump can be on ballot but says he ‘engaged’ in insurrection.

Why the scare quotes? He engaged! But the judgement was that the clause doesn’t apply in this case.

Denver District Judge Sarah B. Wallace wrote that Trump “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means; specifically, by using unlawful force and violence.” And, she concluded, “that Trump incited an insurrection on January 6, 2021 and therefore ‘engaged’ in insurrection.” ‘

… Although Wallace found that Trump engaged in insurrection, she determined Section 3 does not apply to him. Section 3 refers to some offices by name as well as those who are an “officer of the United States,” but does not specifically mention the presidency.
 Wallace determined those who wrote Section 3 “did not intend to include the President as ‘an officer of the United States.’”
The judge also determined that the amendment’s provision technically applied to those who swear an oath to “support” the Constitution. The oath Trump took when he was sworn in after he was elected in 2016 was to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.
Wallace wrote she did not want to disqualify someone from office “without a clear, unmistakable indication” that that was what those who wrote the 14th Amendment intended.

Needless to say, Trump will trumpet this as a huge win. No collusion!

Still reckon he’s going to be a convicted felon before November next.

I agree that the smorgasbord of incompatible themes provides a means of plausible deniability. I am proposing that it also reflects the motley crew gathered under his tent.

The Sovereign individual movement rejects government, as such. The various nationalists' movements who seek state power range from the old school white civilization vision of Buchanan to the 'anti-globalist' stew of Bannon. The Christian evangelists are fairly represented in the Heritage Foundation paper I linked to previously. The anti-regulation message serves the interests of the wealthy to become more so. Old school Libertarians want isolationism, etcetera.

The degree to which Trump could be said to genuinely support these various ideas has to be seen through the lens of his experiences in New York City. This article, How Gotham Gave Us Trump, gives a helpful account of his view of the world. The dynamic of wanting to be recognized by a certain elite while simultaneously seeking to punish them for not doing so still is alive today.

This case was always a longshot, but this ruling may actually set the stage for good outcome on appeal. Findings of facts from a trial are rarely overturned on appeal, and it seems to me the finding that Trump engaged in insurrection may be a finding of fact. On the other hand, interpretations of law and constitution are the typical basis for an appellate court overturning a ruling.

Michael Luttig and Laurence Tribe made this point on MSNBC this morning. They suggested this may have even been the strategy of the trial judge. (I realize MSNBC tends to tell Democrats what they want to hear, but nevertheless it's an interesting theory).

Another anti-democratic legal theory tossed in the dust bin. But then the judge falters on basic 1st amendment jurisprudence, giving anti-democratic forces some form of solace as they continue their schemes.

Trump incited an insurrection and should be in prison. In the past, hanged for treason.

Just like to occasionally point out the facts in the midst of all the make believe the cultists have developed like bad improv comedy.

:up: Is there a word for ‘sleepwalking into a nightmare?’ ‘Cause that’s what a lot of people seem to be doing.

The tribalism is so glaringly obvious it’s hilarious. Watching them go after Biden (often rightly so, in my view) and then turn around and go through the most pathetic contortions to defend Trump…just classic.

We didn’t get to see any of this in the J6 inquiry, which used Hollywood producers to gin up a slick narrative, but with the release of the footage we’re finally allowed to see what they hid. Here’s some footage showing Capitol officers using indiscriminate violence against protesters, inciting violence.

I think this only shows that the protesters were too stupid to run away from pepper spray and rubber bullets. Do they also piss into the wind?

The protesters were too stupid to run away from pepper spray and rubber bullets. Don’t forget, there was also the one that was too stupid to run away from the real bullet.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. :worry:

Who received a bronze statue for BLM rioting? Oh, you mean the slavers statue that was pulled down. Were you a fan or something? Why do care so much about that?

We didn’t get to see any of this in the J6 inquiry, which used Hollywood producers to gin up a slick narrative, but with the release of the footage we’re finally allowed to see what they hid. Here’s some footage showing Capitol officers using indiscriminate violence against protesters, inciting violence. — NOS4A2

If the time stamp on the video is correct, these "provocations" by police officers began at 1:15PM. By then, the following had already occurred:

12:45 p.m - FBI, Capitol Police, and ATF responded to a pipe bomb that had been found outside RNC HQ,
12:49PM - Police found a vehicle that contained home-made napalm, a loaded M4, and molotov cocktails
12:53PM - the outer perimeter of barricades at the Capitol had been breached
1:03PM - 3 layers of barricades had been breached
1:07PM - A pipe bomb was found outside DNC HQ

So it looks to me like the poster of that video is still trying to rationalize his irrational denialism regarding 1/6. Not one shred of that "slick narrative" you refer to is debunked.

This highly edited video makes me wish the police had used even greater force. Something similar to the force they use against peaceful pro-Palestinian demonstrators anyway.

This video only shows their restraint. Those imbeciles should have never been there anyway. They’re very lucky they weren’t mowed down.

I’m sure the police would have had such restraint if the crowd were black or Muslim. I’m sure they would have been allowed to stroll into the Capitol and shit in the hallways too.

Your racism sure does shine through sometimes.

I remember at the time thinking how if the rioters were not predominantly white it would have been more than simply tear gas being shot at them. I was amazed at the level of restraint showed by the Capitol police. Nothing in any new footage released has changed my opinion on that. Why, for example, couldn't the protesters have stayed out on the street? Why advance on the building itself? Why try to enter the building? The idea that the police, FBI informants, Antifa or any other crazy theory is the 'true reason' for the escalation is just a sad attempt to deny responsibility for what we all saw with our own eyes that day. We saw an angry mob fired up by Trump's rhetoric and the Big Lie about the election being stolen! And their purpose wasn't to protest, it was to disrupt, otherwise they would have never attempted to enter the Capitol building itself. None of this would have happened if they had stayed on the street.

I think he's referring to this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_George_Floyd

Ah.

It is admirable that Floyd turned his life around with the help of the church. After being found libel for fraud and rape, and facing scores of felony charges, there’s no sign that Trump’s going to turn his life around. Despite all that there’s also no sign that NOS, who’s been diligently defending Trump in this thread for years, thinks that he’s a scumbag. No Trump supporter would say that Trump’s a scumbag. If fact, many claim that he was chosen by God.

So when a person like NOS calls someone a scumbag it is meaningless.

I don't think George Floyd deserves the sainthood bestowed upon him by popular opinion, but I couldn't agree more about everything else.

They’re throwing concussion grenades into the crowd of people indiscriminately and without warning. They’re shooting less-than-lethal rounds into people’s faces. Did you see any of this in the J6 show trial?

We saw an angry mob fired up by Trump's rhetoric and the Big Lie about the election being stolen! And their purpose wasn't to protest, it was to disrupt, otherwise they would have never attempted to enter the Capitol building itself. — GRWelsh

Exactly. One point does have credibility, in my view: that militia were “leading the way,” so to speak. Oath Keepers, etc. That’s not a surprise, though, and doesn’t negate why people were there to begin with: they were whipped up into a frenzy by lies of a stolen election. Given that they actually believed that stupid bullshit, it’s no wonder they wanted to storm the Capitol.

They’re shooting less-than-lethal rounds into people’s faces. — NOS4A2

If they are black, it wouldn’t be “less than lethal.” There should consider themselves very lucky indeed.

There are 44,000 hours of January 6th video footage. Of course you can find footage that wasn't displayed in the January 6th Committee Hearings. Now, either side can cherry pick all they want, but so far I haven't seen anything to change the overall narrative. The protesters pushed past barricades the Capitol police set up to keep them out, and in response they were hit with non-lethal police devices like tear gas, rubber bullets and concussion grenades. They should have stayed on the street.

The way I see it is: on the street they were protesters, pushing past the police barricades and approaching the Capitol building they were rioters, and breaking into the Capitol building and trying to get into the rooms where Congress was certifying the election results they were insurrectionists. If you want to understand why and where Ashli Babbitt got shot, this is how to frame it. She was attempting to climb through a broken window beside a barricaded door into the Speaker's Lobby while Capitol police were evacuating members of Congress to keep them safe. These people weren't protesting peacefully, they were trying to intimidate and prevent Congress from certifying Biden as the President.

They’re throwing concussion grenades into the crowd of people... — NOS4A2

...who had breeched the barricades and police lines and after pipe bombs had been found. Are you suggesting the actions of these undermanned police wasn't warranted? Do you think it was a legal act to break into the Capitol?

They’re shooting less-than-lethal rounds into people’s faces.

The video appears to show one guy who took a shot to his face, presumably from police shooting from a distance. Again, were the cops unwarranted in doing so? What would you have them do, under the full context of circumstances? (A context you've ignored)?

Did you see any of this in the J6 show trial?

Are you referring to Stewart Rhodes trial? J6 committee hearings? Please explain what falsehoods came out.

...who had breeched the barricades and police lines and after pipe bombs had been found. Are you suggesting the actions of these undermanned police wasn't warranted? Do you think it was a legal act to break into the Capitol? — Relativist

It seems he's defending an attempt to overthrow the government and disregard democracy in order to whitewash Trump's connection to it.

Has this thread basically become his constant attempts at defending Trump and everyone else trying to get the discussion down to earth?