I will concede to you the last word over this sidebar discussion. I'll simply cite this . . .Clinton conceded the next day. Trump still hasn't conceded over a year later and is still lying today about the election being stolen. Trump is the standout anomaly. And let's finally put it to rest: it's all about the inability of the right to abide an election they plainly and simply lost. That's not very good sportsmanship, or very American.
I will concede to you the last word over this sidebar discussion. I'll simply cite this . . .
. . . as testimony that contrary to what you believe Hillary never really did concede the election. Her beliefs are what triggered a campaign to remove Trump from office. A campaign that continues today with efforts to disqualify him from running in 2024. A prospect the DNC fears.
You may have the last word.
Are you arguing that ignorance of the law is a defense?
Easily managed. They conspired, and then 1/6 took place.No. I am saying that the Seditious Conspiracy act has two components-- the use of force and opposing the lawful authority of the USA.
Have to prove both.
I’m not a lawyer, but because I think something doesn’t excuse me if I act on those thoughts. I think it is faulty logic to look at the events of 6JAN21 without taking into account all of the events that preceded and followed it.No. I am saying that the Seditious Conspiracy act has two components-- the use of force and opposing the lawful authority of the USA.
Have to prove both.
But in order to prove that the accused are opposing the lawful authority of the USA, it needs to be proved that the accused knows that their actions are opposing the lawful authority of the USA. If that can't be shown, then you can't show that they are opposing the lawful authority of the USA. Maybe there is another statute around that would apply, but for this statute, no it can't.
Motive for the action has to be proven.
So when these Oathtaker types say that they took action because they think Trump is the lawful president and not Biden, have to prove that they knew that Biden was the lawful president-elect when they took their action and opposed the lawful authority of then USA.
That is what the Seditious conspiracy statute requires.
The Seditious Conspiracy statute is not a general conspiracy law.
It is specific, concerning the use of force and in opposition to lawful USA authority.
Do you not keep up on the news?You made that up.
No mysterious “they” are investigating the Loudoun County BoE.
The right wing astroturf attack was first publicized in Loudoun County because Loudoun County would be a swing county in the upcoming gubernatorial election.
The GOP knew Youngkin needed to avoid falling into the trap of being forced to grovel to Trump.
But he needed Trump’s voters.
So, they needed to push the bigotry button without tying it to Trump.
The campaign triggered the trump base. That’s for sure.
In the view of Democrats any Republican winning an election is illegitimate?I will concede to you the last word over this sidebar discussion. I'll simply cite this . . .
. . . as testimony that contrary to what you believe Hillary never really did concede the election. Her beliefs are what triggered a campaign to remove Trump from office. A campaign that continues today with efforts to disqualify him from running in 2024. A prospect the DNC fears.
You may have the last word.
It seems that their choice of Party name was done with the sole intent of fooling their supporters into believing they stand for Democracy. The name is a gross misnomer, but the sheep continue to buy the deception. Being the Party of Democrac(y=t) gives rise to any other Party being illegitimate by being opposed to Democrac(y=t).In the view of Democrats any Republican winning an election is illegitimate?
Especially so since it is the Democrats who are trying to ram through major election overhaul on single party vote, which, surprise surprise, would do little else than to advantage them, and the same level of deception, calling it a 'Voter Rights' bill, when it's nothing more than an 'Advantage Democrat's' bill.It seems that their choice of Party name was done with the sole intent of fooling their supporters into believing they stand for Democracy. The name is a gross misnomer, but the sheep continue to buy the deception. Being the Party of Democrac(y=t) gives rise to any other Party being illegitimate by being opposed to Democrac(y=t).
Yea, being scumbags despised by most people can be a disadvantage. Then again, you could change...would do little else than to advantage them
So you are saying if more people vote, that’s bad for republicans? LolEspecially so since it is the Democrats who are trying to ram through major election overhaul on single party vote, which, surprise surprise, would do little else than to advantage them, and the same level of deception, calling it a 'Voter Rights' bill, when it's nothing more than an 'Advantage Democrat's' bill.
Democrats are trying to make sure every eligible voter can vote. Why does that bother you?Democrats are constantly pulling this kinda of crap, so much so, the safer, most prudent position is simply to not believe a word that comes from their mouths, unless proven by 3 reliable sources otherwise, and maybe even then not.
Are your trolling me?
CT stuff
Remember they where gonna stay there all night to delay.
The theory is based on what we know already.
I will concede to you the last word over this sidebar discussion. I'll simply cite this . . .
. . . as testimony that contrary to what you believe Hillary never really did concede the election. Her beliefs are what triggered a campaign to remove Trump from office. A campaign that continues today with efforts to disqualify him from running in 2024. A prospect the DNC fears.
You may have the last word.
There's a least a 10% chance they're actually that dumb.Lol right. Like Bannon and Stone and Jordan and Trump were counting on a dozen kooks from Oath Keepers to overthrow the government.
#1/6Truthers
1) Given that "THE STABLE GENIUS" failed to achieve a 50% approval rating just once in 4 years, the Republicans have effectively "painted themselves into a corner" come 2024!. . . as testimony that contrary to what you believe Hillary never really did concede the election. Her beliefs are what triggered a campaign to remove Trump from office. A campaign that continues today with efforts to disqualify him from running in 2024. A prospect the DNC fears.
1) Given that "THE STABLE GENIUS" failed to achieve a 50% approval rating just once in 4 years, the Republicans have effectively "painted themselves into a corner" come 2024!
2) The longer they choose remain locked into Trump's "CULT OF PERSONALITY," the more they will find themselves trapped on "A ONE-WAY BRIDGE LEADING TO NOWHERE!"
3) Those conservatives and Independents not "intoxicated" by the Trump "COOL-AID" will vote Democratic - not that they agree with their ideology BUT because they view the alternative as an existential threat to "DEMOCRACY!"
The real question is, who put all that nonsense into your head?Don’t tell them!
The man in their AM radio told them that they were the “silent majority” for forty years.
And they knew their moment had come when Donald Trump pulled an inside straight in the Electoral Collage.
And for four years , they cheered his corruption, his vulgarity, and loved the open bigotry jingoism,and celebrated his tabloid star behavior.
And now it’s over. Trumpism and its namesake dishonored the Presidency and disgraced the nation he swore to serve.
And yet, dispite it all, the trump white resentment mob thinks it is still the only “real America”.
And Donald Trump is their fuhrer.
The real question is, who put all that nonsense into your head?
The wokeys who took over gubment are making sure whites are punished for slavery and Jim Crow.
I’m not a lawyer, but because I think something doesn’t excuse me if I act on those thoughts. I think it is faulty logic to look at the events of 6JAN21 without taking into account all of the events that preceded and followed it.
None of it is true. But I have no doubt that you believe itYou know it’s all true.
I understand the logic of your argument. It’s the exact same logic other people have made in court about other types of conspiracies. The Courts have explicitly rejected your argument for at least approximately 70 years. And that is why your legal defense of your Oathkeeper friends is a very poor one.
If you want to persuade me or anyone else contributing to this thread that your opinion is correct about this legal issue you’re going to have to come to the table armed with case law and Supreme Court rulings — just as I’ve done — instead of just mindlessly repeating the same point over and over.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?