The strangest correlations ... :)

Christian nationalists party at Mar-a-Lago and warn of God's wrath if Trump loses again (— Brad Reed · Raw Story · Nov 21, 2023)

Trump has long praised autocrats and populists. He’s now embracing Argentina’s new president (— Nicholas Riccardi, Jill Colvin · AP · Nov 21, 2023)

... or maybe not. That Lance Wallnau fellow is a goner. I guess we'll see what Javier Milei is going to do.

Has this thread basically become his constant attempts at defending Trump — Christoffer

Responding to trolls is counter-productive. Best to ignore.

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?

If these people were guilty of something, then they might have deserved such treatment. If they weren’t guilty of any such thing, then they didn’t deserve such treatment. Some people were simply exercising their fundamental rights. The suggestion all of the people there were doing something illegal or were associated with a potential pipe-bomber is unwarranted, as was the indiscriminate application of force.

Recall that when violent protesters attacked the whitehouse in 2020, removing barriers and violently harming officers and secret service with bricks and urine, defacing monuments, toppling statues, and the like, the press and politicians sang a different tune. Should the protesters have been shot in the face with pepper balls and concussion grenades thrown at their feet?

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)?

Yes, they were unwarranted because it is not clear who is or is not guilty of the crimes you imply they have committed.

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

I am asking about the J6 committee show trial in particular, the one tasked with investigating and informing the public on the matter. Did you see any of this video in the footage that was sewn together by the Hollywood producer, or at any time throughout the hearing?

Recall that when violent protesters attacked the whitehouse in 2020, removing barriers and violently harming officers and secret service with bricks and urine, defacing monuments, toppling statues, and the like, the press and politicians sang a different tune. Should the protesters have been shot in the face with pepper balls and concussion grenades thrown at their feet? — NOS4A2

The reports show that pepper spray, tear gas, and concussion grenades were used to disperse a crowd of hundreds. By contrast, it’s estimated that ten thousand were at the insurrection, two thousand of which made it into the capital building.

If these people were guilty of something, then they might have deserved such treatment. If they weren’t guilty of any such thing, then they didn’t deserve such treatment. Some people were simply exercising their fundamental rights. The suggestion all of the people there were doing something illegal or were associated with a potential pipe-bomber is unwarranted, as was the indiscriminate application of force. — NOS4A2

The right to protest does not confer the right to break the law. It is illegal to pass through a barricade erected by police. Everyone fired upon was guilty of that, and they were fired upon because the crowd was moving toward the Capitol, during an official proceding - a proceeding that (it was known) many in the crowd wanted to stop, and there were good reasons to suspect some might have bombs. It was the duty of police to stop the crowd from illegally entering and disrupting the proceeding.

Undoubtedly, many were just following the crowd- they didn't personally push through the barricades or personally break into the Capitol. But it was nevertheless stupid and dangerous to follow.

Recall that when violent protesters attacked the whitehouse in 2020, removing barriers and violently harming officers and secret service with bricks and urine, defacing monuments, toppling statues, and the like, the press and politicians sang a different tune.

You have shifted from an allegation the police did wrong to complaining about a perceived double standard in the media and some politicians. Violence, vandalism, and breaking&entering is wrong in all cases - do you agree? The 2020 crowd engaged in those crimes, but they did not break into the White House or disrupt an official proceeding.

they were unwarranted because it is not clear who is or is not guilty of the crimes you imply they have committed.

100% had crossed the barricades, and it is impossible for the outmanned police to distinguish the violent from the nonviolent. In 2020, tear gas cannisters were thrown into the crowd - was that also inappropriate?

What should police have done on 1/6? What do you think they would have done had they tried breaking into the White House in 2020?

I am asking about the J6 committee show trial in particular, the one tasked with investigating and informing the public on the matter. Did you see any of this video in the footage that was sewn together by the Hollywood producer, or at any time throughout the hearing?

Yes, I saw it. It wasn't a trial, it was closer to a grand jury proceeding pusuant to an indictment. I'm waiting for you to identify what lies it contained.

The right to protest does not confer the right to break the law. It is illegal to pass through a barricade erected by police. Everyone fired upon was guilty of that, and they were fired upon because the crowd was moving toward the Capitol, during an official proceding - a proceeding that (it was known) many in the crowd wanted to stop, and there were good reasons to suspect some might have bombs. It was the duty of police to stop the crowd from illegally entering and disrupting the proceeding.

Undoubtedly, many were just following the crowd- they didn't personally push through the barricades or personally break into the Capitol. But it was nevertheless stupid and dangerous to follow.

They were fired upon for passing through a barricade erected by police, and for moving toward the capitol during an official proceeding.This justifies the indiscriminate throwing of concussion grenades into the crowd, who are all criminals, according to Relativist. That's all I needed to know.

You have shifted from an allegation the police did wrong to complaining about a perceived double standard in the media and some politicians. Violence, vandalism, and breaking&entering is wrong in all cases - do you agree? The 2020 crowd engaged in those crimes, but they did not break into the White House or disrupt an official proceeding.

I haven't shifted. It is wrong to use force so indiscriminately, especially when those people are only guilty of waving flags and middle fingers. Nothing has changed.

I'm just making the side point that the entire year prior was filled with far worse violence and destruction, up until and including an attack on the white house, which spread beyond the temporary barriers into the streets where private property was destroyed and (of course) looted. I'm just wondering where all the investigative committees and finger-wagging about "our democracy" is. This apparent hypocrisy doesn't go unnoticed.

Yes, I saw it. It wasn't a trial, it was closer to a grand jury proceeding pusuant to an indictment. I'm waiting for you to identify what lies it contained.

A "show trial" isn't an actual trial either.

Again, my only point that this footage wasn't found in the inquiries, or at least I missed it. But you did see this footage in the hearings? There were 10 hearings in total (C-Span). Do you recall which hearing it was? I'd like to see it with my own eyes.

They were fired upon for passing through a barricade erected by police, and for moving toward the capitol during an official proceeding. — NOS4A2

You omitted the fact that they were fired upon with non-lethal weapons to prevent their entry into the Capitol, that would jeopardize the proceding, and there was a real threat that they could have bombs. They weren't fired upon to stop them protesting.

I haven't shifted. It is wrong to use force so indiscriminately, especially when those people are only guilty of waving flags and middle fingers. Nothing has changed. — NOS4A2

Was it inappropriate to stop people from breaking into the Capitol? You have sidestepped this point. Explain how police could discriminate between those who would be harmful from those who were harmless.

I'm just making the side point that the entire year prior was filled with far worse violence and destruction, up until and including an attack on the white house — NOS4A2

Sure, worse violence and destruction, but the Capitol situation is unique in that an official proceding required by law to take place on that date was being jeopardized. You treat this as irrelevant, though it was the key point.

my only point that this footage wasn't found in the inquiries,

So you agree the J6 committee told no lies, but you would have liked them to have shown this guy who inadvertantly got hurt by police. The committee was focusing on crimes, but I agree it would have added to the story, implicating Trump's immorality even further. Had he not inflamed his followers with lies (e.g. election was stolen and certification could be prevented) and had he not encouraged them to come to the DC that day, the innocent protestors would not have been hurt. You completely ignore this.

BTW, police actions were scrutinized and deemed justified. See: Www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf

You omitted the fact that they were fired upon with non-lethal weapons to prevent their entry into the Capitol, that would jeopardize the proceding, and there was a real threat that they could have bombs. They weren't fired upon to stop them protesting.

You omitted the fact that no one was found with bombs at the riot. So the "real threat" was in fact not real.

When protesters stormed the police barriers during the Kavanaugh hearings, and tried to break into the building, they were arrested. When they broke into the Hart Senate building and protested illegally, they were arrested. When Isreal/Gaza protesters got into the Cannon House Office Building and protested there, they were arrested. That sort of enforcement is justified. What they didn't do was fire "less-than-lethal" weapons into the crowd indiscriminately. What they didn't do was shoot an unarmed woman in the neck.

Was it inappropriate to stop people from breaking into the Capitol? You have sidestepped this point. Explain how police could discriminate between those who would be harmful from those who were harmless.

It think it is appropriate to stop people from entering the capitol. Go ahead and arrest them. But it is not appropriate to inflict violence on the non-violent. Are you unable to discriminate between those who are violent and those who are not? If you see a woman waiving a flag in protest, or filming the crowd on her phone, do you suggest throwing a concussion grenade at her just in case?

Sure, worse violence and destruction, but the Capitol situation is unique in that an official proceding required by law to take place on that date was being jeopardized. You treat this as irrelevant, though it was the key point.

Who cares about official proceedings? It's a stupid point.

So you agree the J6 committee told no lies, but you would have liked them to have shown this guy who inadvertantly got hurt by police. The committee was focusing on crimes, but I agree it would have added to the story, implicating Trump's immorality even further. Had he not inflamed his followers with lies (e.g. election was stolen and certification could be prevented) and had he not encouraged them to come to the DC that day, the innocent protestors would not have been hurt. You completely ignore this.

The whole thing was an show trial. I've said this many times. They implicated nothing but their use of public funds to spread propaganda.

BTW, police actions were scrutinized and deemed justified. See: Www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf

The capitol police believed their own actions were justified. Big surprise.

You omitted the fact that no one was found with bombs at the riot. So the "real threat" was in fact not real. — NOS4A2

That's irrelevant to the police actions at the time. They aren't clairvoyant. There was a credible threat when the actions were taken.

The context includes much more than hypothetical threat. A good outline of events is clear from radio dispatches presented at the trial of some Proud Boys. See:

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/proud-boys/our-situation-here-is-dire-radio-dispatches-reveal-police-scrambling-as-jan-6-rioters-break-into-building/

When protesters stormed the police barriers during the Kavanaugh hearings, and tried to break into the building, they were arrested. When they broke into the Hart Senate building and protested illegally, they were arrested. When Isreal/Gaza protesters got into the Cannon House Office Building and protested there, they were arrested. That sort of enforcement is justified. What they didn't do was fire "less-than-lethal" weapons into the crowd indiscriminately. What they didn't do was shoot an unarmed woman in the neck. — NOS4A2

The other situations were different. For example, in the Kavanaugh protests there were maybe a couple hundred protesters banging on the door of the Supreme Court - they didn't break in, and the number was small enough it could be dealt with by arresting them.

It think it is appropriate to stop people from entering the capitol. Go ahead and arrest them. — NOS4A2

Here's a quote from a Capitol police officer:
"You couldn't have arrested anybody. You could not. We were surrounded. Normally in mass-arrest situation, they comply under arrest. But (the attackers had) already proven to us they wanted to beat our asses. No way arrests could have been affected at that moment. Just get these people out and survive."

Who cares about official proceedings? It's a stupid point. — NOS4A2

It's highly relevant, and it seems that's why you choose to disregard it. It was a key proceeding mandated by law, one that Trump wanted to corrupt (through Pence) or to stop (through the actions of his unthinking minions).

The whole thing was an show trial. I've said this many times. They implicated nothing but their use of public funds to spread propaganda. — NOS4A2

Propaganda? I asked you to identify some lies, and you couldn't find any. Important facts were presented. We learned about the role of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, of Rudy's lies, of Trump trying to get the acting AG to lie for him, of Eastman's unconstitutional scheme, and of Trump's pressuring Pence to illegally reject the certified results. It presented an accurate timeline showing Trump's inaction (save for condemning Pence) as the Capitol was broken into. And many more. Your only concern was the fact that there were some presumably innocent people in the crowd that got hurt, while ignoring the context that led to the use of non-lethal force, and ignoring that these innocent people were there based on lies by a man who'd sworn an oath to defend the Constitution.

You've made it clear you don't care what anyone did except for the Police.

The irony: most Trump supporters were outraged that Biden had ostensibly stolen the election. What actually occurred is that TRUMP was attempting to steal the election with lies, but when Trump does this, you think it 's insignificant. Are you disappointed he failed?

The capitol police believed their own actions were justified. Big surprise. — NOS4A2

Big surprise: you disregard it because it doesn't fit your preferred narrative. Who would you have wanted to conduct the review? Steve Bannon?

Trump’s Gag Orders Reinstated by Appeals Court in New York Civil Fraud Case

I’m glad there are still some adults in the system, to be honest.

I expect Trump supporters will continue to complain that this is infringing Trump's free speech. They apparently lament Trump's being restricted from hurling ad hominem attacks, and feel this unfairly hurts his election chances.

Following up on what I said in the prior post, Trump's attorneys are appealing the gag order to the next level. They say:

""Without expedited review, [the defendants] will continue to suffer irreparable injury daily"
(https://news.yahoo.com/trump-seeks-urgent-review-gag-162355358.html)

Consider what this means: Trump is "injured" by being restricted from making false statements attacking the judge's clerk, judge's wife, and others. This is his forte, and his best path to getting elected, but I wish his supporters could make this connection.

They apparently lament Trump's being restricted from hurling ad hominem attacks, and feel this unfairly hurts his election chances. — Relativist

That is a curtailment of free speech, as i understand it. Unfortunately, it's actually the legal proceeding protocol that matters, so your conclusion is still correct (particularly with the second post immediately above this one)

That is a curtailment of free speech — AmadeusD

The broad legal issue is: are any judicial gag orders constitutional? Trump isn't special.

are any judicial gag orders constitutional? — Relativist

(am not trained in constitutional law, but law in general).

Yes. It has to meet the benchmark for 'fair trial rights' being preserved, though. That can be pretty vague and requires serious scrutiny of the order in question.

I would have thought that any legal process would involve arrest, detainment, mandated appearances and questioning, imprisonment, or any combination plus many other possible abatements of freedom including confiscation of snake oil and possibly fraudulent papers, and a rather strict ban on blackmail, threatening behaviour, slander and libel. So annoying, so unfair.

Trump Loses Bid to Fast-Track Appeal of His New York Gag Orders

That was fast.

I think some of those consequences are on the table: mandated appearances, questioning by judge, and jail time - just like violating any court order. But there is this 1st Amendment issue

Trump has posted degrading lies about many people over the years that led to threats by some of his devoted deranged followers. This is protected free speech (I presume). But now he's in a civil court, and this apparently gives the judge some discretion to restrict that speech.

Supporters of maximal free speech (like the ACLU) defend Trump's right to disparage people, irrespective of any consequences that follow from that disparagement, and deny that involvement in a court proceeding makes any difference.

The gag order in the criminal court has different circumstances. When someone's indicted, they aren't entitled to all freedoms: they're often jailed pending trial, but usually offered the opportunity to post bail to stay out of lockup. But in this case, there can be conditions of release. I think this gives a judge in a criminal case broader discretion. Nevertheless, the ACLU still insists 1st Amendment rights "trump" judge's discretion.

It's tempting to criticize the ACLU for caring more about free speech than the risks posed to the people Trump is disparaging. But they are just defending a principle of maximal, unrestricted free speech. So it's a fair Constitutional question (IMO). But setting aside this Constitutional technicality, I think there's something inherently wrong with allowing people to be endangered by false and inflammatory public language.

I'm interested in hearing your assessment of what I just wrote, since you're a lawyer.

I think there's something inherently wrong with allowing people to be endangered by false and inflammatory public language. — Relativist

Yes. it's dangerous, for a start. And false and inflammatory.

Words are dangerous, the censor’s bird call and the tyrant’s bird brain.

That’s what these gags are about. As usual, it’s Trump’s fault they are getting threats. It has nothing to do with their own behavior. His Truth posts must be so powerful they trigger successive interactions in the human nervous system, leading to danger. In the deranged Trump supporter, Trump’s criticism leads them to commit threats.

But that’s just the bullshit excuse they use to cover for their political desire to censor the one man criticizing their malfeasances. The proof is that they have the tools to protect their staff and prosecute those who commit threats but they punish Trump instead. He can’t criticize the law clerk chumming around with Chuck Shumer. Can’t criticize the judge and his weird, shirtless social media posts. But they can let a racist DA with TDS abuse the justice system to hurt Trump financially and politically.

As usual, it’s Trump’s fault they are getting threats. It has nothing to do with their own behavior. — NOS4A2

Get real. No one's claiming the people making threats are innocent. But it's firmly established that there are people like this who follow Trump. Threats to the people he disparages are inevitable, and Trump surely knows that - so it's irresponsible to inflame them - irrespective of the legality (that's for courts to decide). Consider that Trump could add a disclaimer to every one of his attacks, reminding everyone not to take actions or make threats. Or he could simply remind all his followers to remain law abiding. Instead he's passive, which leads one to suspect he's fine with whatever happens. Reminds me of his 1/6 tweet: "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long".

"But that’s just the bullshit excuse they use to cover for their political desire to censor the one man criticizing their malfeasances"
The only thing Engeron "censored" was Trump's attacks on his law clerk. How does that hurt him politically? Do his political ambitions depend on maximizing animosity toward anyone he chooses to denigrate?

But they can let a racist DA… — NOS4A2

Racist?

Yes, dumb Trump voters and the orangutan turn out to be a degenerative sub-species of homo erectus.

a degenerative sub-species of homo erectus. — Benkei

The race that speaks with a forked tongue? :gasp:

Your use of the word “attack” indicates your belief that his criticism is somehow aggressive and violent. But this specious rhetoric only serves to disguise the truth, namely, that his criticism is non-violent. He neither speaks of violence nor advocates for it, something that his critics would never mention because it undermines their whole case.



And sexist, apparently.

Your use of the word “attack” indicates your belief that his criticism is somehow aggressive and violent. — NOS4A2

You're groping for something to complain about, since you ignored the substance of what I said. The label "attack" applies to many negative statements a person might make against another. Engeron described it that way: “Personal attacks on members of my court staff are unacceptable, inappropriate and I will not tolerate them in any circumstances.” Have his lawyers objected to that term? My impression is that they're simply arguing that his attacks are protected free speech.

But this specious rhetoric only serves to disguise the truth, namely, that his criticism is non-violent

Has anyone said Trump's "criticism" is violent? I haven't. But I said that it is PREDICTABLY likely to result in violent threats, and Trump is clearly aware:

"A top court security official wrote in an affidavit that transcriptions of threats to Greenfield and Engoron produced since Trump's original Oct. 3 social media post filled 275 single-spaced pages. Charles Hollen, an official in the Department of Public Safety, said the threats included calls to Greenfield's personal phone and messages to her personal email account.

"Hollen wrote that the threats increased when the gag order was stayed, and that during that time, "approximately half of the harassing and disparaging messages have been antisemitic."
--https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gag-order-new-york-fraud-case-appeal/

As I've said, the courts will have to sort out the Constitutional issues. Perhaps they'll decide Trump has the constitutional right to post inflammatory lies about people. But that has no bearing on the immorality of what he's doing. Why don't you comment on that?

And sexist, apparently. — NOS4A2

Non-sequitur. James has been pushing for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party. Such a desire does not entail sexism. Consider: https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-hopes-to-add-black-lawmakers-to-house-11603892455

Words are dangerous ... — NOS4A2

One of the greatest dangers of words comes from disregard for their importance, as if what Trump says does not matter.

When Trump speaks his "patriots" listen. When he says:

The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within.

they believe him. Do you think these "patriots" will act on his words or not?

You're groping for something to complain about, since you ignored the substance of what I said. The label "attack" applies to many negative statements a person might make against another. Engeron described it that way: “Personal attacks on members of my court staff are unacceptable, inappropriate and I will not tolerate them in any circumstances.” Have his lawyers objected to that term? My impression is that they're simply arguing that his attacks are protected free speech.

The substance of what you said was pure wind. I don't care what Engeron describes. I don't care what the unjust court says. Their arguments are hokum. Of course his criticism is free speech. Their gag order is censorship.

As I've said, the courts will have to sort out the Constitutional issues. Perhaps they'll decide Trump has the constitutional right to post inflammatory lies about people. But that has no bearing on the immorality of what he's doing. Why don't you comment on that?

There is nothing to comment on. It's complete nonsense. He has a right under the constitution to say whatever he wants, up until the very high bar of "immanent lawless action". No matter how hard they try to say his criticism somehow correlated with someone else's threats, it doesn't matter, they are abridging his human rights. These threats also correlate with the degree to which they are exposed as unjust, petty tyrants and fellow travellers with Trump's political foes. If they were just, fair, and did not violate his rights, I bet they'd get less threats.

Non-sequitur. James has been pushing for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party. Such a desire does not entail sexism.

Straw man. I did not say her desires for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party entails racism, though it does, and for the same reason desiring more men and whites is racist. She was saying the administration is "too male, too pale, and too stale" which is both racist and sexist.

they believe him. Do you think these "patriots" will act on his words or not?

No and for the same reason you wouldn't act on his words. Words don't have the power you pretend they do.

If they do act it is because they perceive an injustice, not words.

The substance of what you said was pure wind. I don't care what Engeron describes. I don't care what the unjust court says. Their arguments are hokum. Of course his criticism is free speech. Their gag order is censorship. — NOS4A2

You have a lot in common with Trump: you're rebuttals consist of negative adjectives and biased judgment with no facts or logical arguments.

There is nothing to comment on. It's complete nonsense. He has a right under the constitution to say whatever he wants, up until the very high bar of "immanent lawless action". No matter how hard they try to say his criticism somehow correlated with someone else's threats, it doesn't matter, they are abridging his human rights. These threats also correlate with the degree to which they are exposed as unjust, petty tyrants and fellow travellers with Trump's political foes. If they were just, fair, and did not violate his rights, I bet they'd get less threats. — NOS4A2

Are you an expert in Constitutional Law? I'm not, and that's why I simply indicate that the courts will decide that issue. I would certainly PREFER that they consider the consequences of such incindiary speech, but I'll accept what is decided. But as I said, regardless of how the courts will decide - his behavior is immoral. If you disagree that it's immoral, then make a case (for a change. reminder: this is a philosophy forum).

Straw man. I did not say her desires for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party entails racism, though it does, and for the same reason desiring more men and whites is racist. She was saying the administration is "too male, too pale, and too stale" which is both racist and sexist. — NOS4A2

A video of her chanting "too male, too pale, and too stale" doesn't entail (i.e. logically imply) that she's racist. Neither does a desire for more people like her serving in public office. Whether or not someone is truly racist is usually difficult to know, because we can't peek into their heads to understand what they actually believe and what their motivations are. Only when there's a long term pattern of behavior can we discern that, like members of the KKK. I think it's debatable as to whether or not Trump is racist for that same reason, and there's a boatload more questionable comments and actions he's responsible for over the years.

https://newrepublic.com/post/177342/jack-smith-new-evidence-trump-tried-start-riot-michigan

Prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith revealed Tuesday that they have proof an “agent” for Donald Trump tried to cause a riot in Michigan to stop the vote count in the 2020 presidential election.

Smith indicted Trump in August for his role in the January 6 insurrection and other attempts to overturn the presidential election. Smith’s team said in a Tuesday court filing that an unindicted co-conspirator, identified only as “Campaign Employee” sent text messages on November 4, 2020, to an attorney working with Trump’s campaign at the TCF Center in Detroit, where ballots were being counted.

“In the messages, the Campaign Employee encouraged rioting and other methods of obstruction when he learned that the vote count was trending in favor of the defendant’s opponent,” prosecutors said.

Joe Biden won Michigan in 2020 with 50.6 percent of the vote. Trump was just a few percentage points behind.

According to the filing, around the same time the employee sent those messages, “an election official at the TCF Center observed that as Biden began to take the lead, a large number of untrained individuals flooded the TCF Center and began making illegitimate and aggressive challenges to the vote count.” Meanwhile, Trump himself began pushing false claims about the TCF Center.