ROFL! You ignored the relevance to Trump's fitness to serve!

Regarding the law:
"The doctrine of willful blindness is well established in criminal law. Many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances. The traditional rationale for this doctrine is that defendants who behave in this manner are just as culpable as those who have actual knowledge."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/10-6.ZO.html

What you can quote him advocating is people march to the capital building and cheer on the congressmen. — NOS4A2

Do you think Trump was encouraging them to march up to the Capitol to cheer on the Republican Congressmen from the street? Outside on the steps of the Capitol? Inside the chambers where Congress was actually convening? Where, exactly, were they supposed to do all of this peaceful cheering?

You’ve found me another reason why law in general and the legal profession in particular are stupid. Another reason why you should refrain from appealing it.

Nonetheless, Appeals to authority and the claims of state bureaucrats and council are not the evidence of critical facts. And there has to be a crime.

Do you think Trump was encouraging them to march up to the Capitol and cheer on the Republican Congressmen from the street? Outside on the steps of the Capitol? Inside the chambers were Congress was actually convening? What, exactly?

In the area cleared for the protest.

Willful ignorance entails poor reasoning. If Trump reasons that poorly, he's not fit to be President. You keep avoiding this.

Regarding the legal issue: by holding people accountable for willful ignorance, it encourages one to avoid it where matters of law are at hand- especially when it negatively impacts people. People were hurt, and the nation has suffered, from Trump's untruths- and it's morally correct to hold him accountable irrespective of whether he intentionally lied, or was willfully ignorant.

Assuming Trump truly believed he won, the morally optimal approach would have been to pusue all legal paths, but to concede when these legal paths failed. That would show respect for the Constitution. This was what Gore did in 2000. Instead, Trump showed disrespect for the Constitution and rule of law.

You’ve found me another reason why law in general and the legal profession in particular are stupid. — NOS4A2

You seem to be opposed to rule of law. I can't say I'm surprised.

The law strives for impartial, reasoned judgement, even if it doesn't always get it right. It's still far more reliable than any alternatives. Undermining the rule of law is thus morally reprehensible- it gives primacy to a personal, biased judgement.

Nonetheless, Appeals to authority and the claims of state bureaucrats and council are not the evidence of critical facts. And there has to be a crime. — NOS4A2

This seems incoherent. He's been charged with crimes, and ideally he'll have the opportunity to defeat the prosecution's case. What "appeal to authority"? Are you referring to legal precedent? State bureaucrats? Who are you referring to? The eyewitnesses? Or are you just insisting we all consider him virtuous until proven guilty? (That would be extremely hypocritical, coming from someone who's complained of Biden's "litany of lies" - but who can't identify any specific lie).

His fitness for president has already been proven. That lie was refuted every day he was in office.

No, not a single person was hurt because of “Trump’s untruths”. The nation suffered because there was four years of hoaxes, and many are trapped in a moral panic the likes of which have never been seen.

I’ve already identified Biden’s lies. Your willful ignorance on the matter suggests you’re not one to talk. It was a “blizzard of lies”.

Insurrectionists wanting Biden to block certification.



Insurrectionists preventing certification of the results of a legitimate election.

[

His fitness for president has already been proven. — NOS4A2

How does any past actions erase the fact that Trump was irrational in his judgement of the election result? You've chosen to excuse his falsehood by assuming he truly believed he won, but then refuse to recognize the negative implication this has on Trump's intellectual capacity. You'd be better off calling it a shrewd lie.

No, not a single person was hurt because of “Trump’s untruths”. The nation suffered because there was four years of hoaxes, and many are trapped in a moral panic the likes of which have never been seen. — NOS4A2

People went to prison as a result of Trump's election falsehoods. Police were physically injured; Babbit was killed. Trust in the election system and rule of law is at an all time low, and division at an all time high. Only an anarchist would applaud this.

Yes, Trump's "Russia hoax" hoax is a factor - one of his own making. The Russia investigation was legitimate, albeit that some mistakes were made. Trump should have celebrated the process since it exhonerated him of conspiring with Russia (we'll never know how much his obstruction played a role in this, but it's moot now). Instead, he undermined confidence in the system, and fanned the flames of conspiracy theorists.

I'm dissappointed that you are mislead by these types of claims, as you're one of the wiser and more level-headed contributors on this forum. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the compliment. But listen carefully here: "Surge the Border"

Do you really think those wanting to immigrate pay much attention to "context"?

Please provide your definition of "insurrection". The Colorado Supreme Court ruling surveyed a variety of definitions, and I don't see that any apply. For example, they quoted Trump's attorney, saying it's "more than a riot, less than a rebellion". An objection raised in a parliamentary procedure doesn't even constitute a riot.

Ever heard of the reasonable person test? Because what Trump claims he believes is irrelevant. It's what a reasonable person is allowed to believe. Otherwise I can go around claiming people can fly, despite people telling me it's not true and then get away with pushing someone from a building. That's not how it works. Trump is guilty and will be convicted soon enough.

Please provide your definition of "insurrection". The Colorado Supreme Court ruling surveyed a variety of definitions, and I don't see that any apply. For example, they quoted Trump's attorney, saying it's "more than a riot, less than a rebellion". An objection raised in a parliamentary procedure doesn't even constitute a riot.

That’s not up to me, or the courts. That’s up to Congress, as only they have the power to enforce the provisions of the article.

But given that the 14th amendment was during the era of reconstruction and refers to the war debts of the insurrection of the confederate states, it’s clearly referring to the kind of insurrection like the civil war. So the clause would refer to those who engaged in the Battle of Fort Sumter, for instance, or those who fought for the Confederacy.

People went to prison as a result of Trump's election falsehoods. Police were physically injured; Babbit was killed.

Babbit was murdered. She was a slight, unarmed woman executed in the capitol building because she jumped through the wrong window. No warning, no takedowns, no less-than-lethal-force, just straight up shot by some goon and left to bleed out. Of course, the goon was promoted, and rioters sent to the gulag in one of the largest federal prosecutions in American history. A travesty of justice all around.

Do you really think those wanting to immigrate pay much attention to "context"? — jgill

Yes, a huge amount of attention. They know if they get into American jurisdiction that they will be assigned a place in the system for the duration of processing, often years. If Congress could agree on changing the conditions it would change their attitude. That’s what the Australian government managed to do with bipartisan support. But there’s zero chance of any bi-partisanship in respect of the American situation, because the Republican Party’s only interest is in exploiting the issue for partisan reasons,

Trump incited an insurrection. True, he's good at plausible deniability, and through in some qualifications and vague terms. But everyone knows what was happening, to the point where violence was predicted and he was asked repeatedly to stop before January 6th. He's certainly partially responsible.

Rhetoric like "if we don't fight we won't have a country anymore," after months of "the election is being stolen," holding a huge rally the moment the votes were being certified. Doesn't take a genius to figure out what was going to happen. If he hadn't lied about a stolen election, if he hadn't whipped his loyal cult following into a frenzy and scheduled a rally, if he hadn't encouraged people to march to the capitol building, none of it would have happened.

He should have been convicted already. A part of me thinks that it shouldn't really matter that they'll be an uproar if he's convicted. Another part says, "Fuck it -- let him be." If the country wants to re-elect this asshole, it'll just empower a bigger backlash.

That’s not up to me, or the courts. That’s up to Congress, as only they have the power to enforce the provisions of the article. — NOS4A2

I thought you were refraining from making legal judgements. If you're going to dabble in it, don't treat your personal opinion as dispositive (as lawyers say).

As I told you several days ago, the Constitution doesn't say that Congress has exclusive right- that is an inference you are making. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment is self-executing (some legal scholars agree)., and pointed (among other things)to the fact that SCOTUS has previously ruled that other sections of the 14th are self-executing, and thus inferred this one would also. A dissenting opinion disagreed. So it appears that intelligent, knowledgeable people can disagree on this point. The only opinion that will ultimately matter is that of SCOTUS. When they do, it will make new law.

Babbit was murdered. She was a slight, unarmed woman executed in the capitol building because she jumped through the wrong window. — NOS4A2

That's a ludicrous characterization. She was among a group of people breaking a window that barred entry to a corridor members of Congress had recently passed through, in their escape from a mob that had already injured policemen. Babbit was climbing through that broken window when she was shot. Her presence in the Capitol was illegal, breaking that window was illegal, and the cop exercised his personal judgement while doing his duty.

Babbit was in DC because Trump had riled her up with lies and said to come. Sad that she died because of the lies.
.

Although you’re right, he did say ‘surge the border’ in a Democratic debate. Not a smart thing to say, I agree.

A reasonable person could go to a transcript of his speech, pick out one of the twenty-odd times he uses the word “fight”, and show how he is being literal, that he’s talking about actually fighting, like everyone who quotes “fight like hell” wants you to believe. — NOS4A2

Twenty-odd times? Wow. It seems the mentioned time, "fight like hell", suffices for what you ask. Why not accept it?

The US Supreme Court has scheduled the first oral arguments over the 14th Amendment bans on Trump’s candidacy for Feb 8th. But again I ask, how could they arrive at a decision in respect of whether Trump engaged in insurrection in advance of the resolution if the January 6th criminal trial, scheduled to begin in March? Surely the outcome of the later case will be materially relevant to the appeal, would it not?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/supreme-court-trump-colorado-14th-amendment-insurrectionist-clause?cid=ios_app

They’re going to issue a broad ruling stating that he cannot be removed with blah blah blah. It’s foregone. They’ll find some reason — doesn’t matter what the reason.

Let him run and lose again. Fine by me.

IMO, SCOTUS will not rule on the question of whether or not Trump participated in the insurrection, nor will they formally define "insurrection". All they need to do is to declare the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President or deny that this clause is "self-enforcing" and requires Congress to pass law to make it enforceable.

Surely the outcome of the later case will be materially relevant to the appeal, would it not? — Wayfarer

Trump is not charged with insurrection in that case. The statement given is:

Good evening. Today, an indictment was unsealed charging Donald J. Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. The indictment was issued by a grand jury of citizens here in the District of Columbia and sets forth the crimes charged in detail. I encourage everyone to read it in full. — Jack Smith

As the question of eligibility has been raised by States in their different processes of determination, there has not been a Federal set of laws established that States have to recognize when judging upon facts. When the 14nth Amendment was written, the insurrectionists were not hiding from the charge but proudly spoke of their service to the Confederacy.

Now you have the people who made the 1/6 action happen shaking pom-poms for the day or denying responsibility for it depending upon which room they happen to be in.

The wind blows through the empty diorama, causing the rope of Mike Pence's gallows to swing and twist alone.

Jan 6th was the regime’s Reichstag fire.

Bought and sold was the idea that we witnessed an insurrection, an attack, as if by a military force on January 6th.. But that portrayal resembles more the countless riots and protests of the preceding year, especially wherever they laid siege to federal and state property, up until and including the occupation of entire city blocks in what rioters and the obsequious press called “autonomous zones”. Despite this and the resulting damage caused, those were just “mostly-peaceful protests”.

We’ve forgotten that in 2020 a mob descended on the Whitehouse, leading to the secret service to take the president to a bunker, a place reserved in case of breaches, bombings, and terrorist attacks. In that event, the president’s whereabouts were leaked to the press and reported as if unconcerned that the nation’s democratically-elected leader could be located and harmed. Of course, they laughed at and mocked the president for it, and drew support for the belligerent parties.

The response of the government to those events was nothing in comparison to the response to January 6th. Like the riots of the previous years, police were indeed injured in the J6 fray, but the establishment mandarins deviated from their typical portrayal and instead gave capitol police a heroes status that those injured in the 2020 riots could never find. Promotions and the medals of honor were never forthcoming.

That’s to say nothing of Jan 6th protesters. Even though they never assaulted any private property, never looted local businesses, never committed any arson, nor killed anyone (a streak that cannot be found among the rioters of 2020), federal stormtroopers would waste no time and resources in sending them to the gulag. Rather, the anger of those on Jan. 6th was directed to the benighted elites in Congress, who hid like cowards behind their benches instead of facing their constituents. One of the rioters grabbed a lectern and another dared to put his feet on Pelosi’s desk. Someone dared to build a miniature gallows, an effigy upon which no one could possibly be hanged. A broken window, a kicked in door, and other milquetoast vandalisms would occur. And look, a guy holding a confederate flag. These and other images would be an assault on their brand of democracy.

When Biden was sworn in his inauguration was surrounded by tanks and razor wire, a fitting image for the new fascism. Had Trump done anything like that after the attack on the whitehouse his opponents would be incensed, of course, but unlike the Biden administration the Reichstag moment never occurred to Trump. The January 6th riot, as inconsequential as it was in comparison to the riots of 2020, never had the support of the obsequious press, who counted it as worse than the civil war, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and 9/11.

As AG Garland noted in a recent press conference, they have charged 1250 individuals and obtained over 890 convictions in connection with the event. It is the largest criminal investigation in American history, and all the charges and convictions just so happen to fall upon the regime’s political opponents, including the biggest threat to their power, Donald Trump.

I would feel triggered if it did not sound like a Philip K Dick scene. It should play softly in the background of the place nobody will claim as their own.

It is the largest criminal investigation in American history, and all the charges and convictions just so happen to fall upon the regime’s political opponents, including the biggest threat to their power, Donald Trump. — NOS4A2

This post contains a number of lies, and I have both flagged it and reported it to the other mods. It beats me why we put up with a constant stream of Trump-related misinformation from you. None of these people are victims of political persecution, they have been indicted and found guily of serious crimes. Seven people died on January 6th 2021, and private property and electoral officers private officers were ransacked and destroyed, contrary to your nonsense.

All they need to do is to declare the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President or deny that this clause is "self-enforcing" and requires Congress to pass law to make it enforceable. — Relativist

Let's see about that. Today Trump is saying that 'his people' on the SCOTUS bench ought to play nice, or else there will be trouble. So now threatening Supreme Court Justices with violence is fair game for the Republican Party, apparently. (You know that many other judicial officers involved in Trump-related cases are routinely subjected to violent threats and obscene social media, right? That this is now par for the course for the apparently-leading 'Presidential Candidate'?)

A NOTE ON TRUMP DISINFORMATION

As this election year hits full stride, Trump's backers are putting serious money, through PACs and sympathetic media outlets, into whitewashing the events of January 6th 2021. They are attempting to downplay the severity of the attack on the Capitol, claiming it was a peaceful protest or that the violence was instigated by left-wing agitators. These claims have been widely disputed by fact-checkers and investigative journalists, but a growing proportion of Republican voters continue to believe that the event was staged by Democrats/antifa/the Left to demonise Trump or that it was a peaceful protest, or that protests by the Black Lives Matter movement were worse.

Social media and other online platforms (including this forum) are being used to spread disinformation about January 6th. Right-wing media outlets amplify disinformation and promote revisionist narratives about January 6th.

It's crucial to approach this topic with a critical eye and to rely on reputable sources for information.

The January 6th Committee investigating the attack on the Capitol: https://january6th.house.gov/
Fact-checking organizations such as PolitiFact and Snopes: https://www.politifact.com/, https://www.snopes.com/
Reputable news organizations such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NPR: https://www.nytimes.com/, https://www.washingtonpost.com/, https://www.npr.org/

And remember a wise saying by Democrat statesman and politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan: Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

It is a fact that Donald J Trump lost the last election and failed in 60 lawsuits to have the result overturned.

It is a fact that, in the words of the January 6th Committee, Trump called the mob, motivated the mob, and lit the match that resulted in the disgraceful, deadly mob attack on the US Capital on Jan 6th 2021. It was not a peaceful protest or a false flag event, but instigated and encouraged by Donald J Trump, who is due to face court for his involvement in these events in the next several months.

Hope this is all sufficiently clear. It will be repeated as often as is necessary in this thread.

Hope this is all sufficiently clear. It will be repeated as often as is necessary in this thread. — Wayfarer

Quite clear, my friend. And mostly I agree. It makes me wish this Fellow were eligible. I'd vote for him.

So with Trump II looming on the horizon, have people started to warm up to RFK Jr. yet?



First person I've ever seen in American politics that dares to speak the naked truth.

But that might be too confrontational to some?

It makes me wish this Fellow were eligible. I'd vote for him. — jgill

have people started to warm up to RFK Jr. yet? — Tzeentch

Kind of sad that all one can find to choose between for president are dynasties of wealth and privilege and old movie stars.