Now you've done it

[TheDeamon]

Effectuality should not really be a measuring stick.  I mean attempted murder may not be as bad as murder, but it is still attempted murder.

Just because they failed at insurrection should not change what they tried to do. Over throw the legitimate election results of the country.

This is where things get ambiguous for the Conservatives and Republicans. And note: Tulsi Gabbard is a Democrat with socialist inclinations, she just an authoritarian about it.

In the minds of a LOT of people that the storming of Capitol Hill might prove to be contemporaneous with someone getting in a time machine and storming the Reichstag on the morning of 30 January 1933 in order to prevent the appointment of the new Chancellor.

Further, the murder/assassination plot claims are perhaps more than a bit over-blown. Was there a murder plot afoot? Very high probability there was one. There also is an extremely high probability that the number of conspirators involved in that plot is unlikely to number much more than a couple dozen people. Plenty ominous at that level still. But more than a couple dozen people went onto Capitol Hill that day. Your "zip-tie" people may not have been part of the murder conspiracy, but instead part of another group looking to "detain" certain people (take hostages) but with no intent to kill.

We shall see what comes out in the court cases that unfold.

But just because there were "bad people" on one side does not make the people on the opposition side of it angels. They can be bad people too.

And Schiff is not a good person by every indication I've seen. Not Hitler levels of bad, but he might be close to Hugo Chavez levels.

[DonaldD]

There were a few nuts mixed in with the bag but that hardly represents the vast majority of the protesters. Only when it's conservatives is that the case. Every other time with any other protest they are considered outliers and not representative of the whole.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the majority, even the vast majority, of the people who attended the 'steal the election' rally, did not participate in the attack on the Capitol.  But the 'few' who were involved in the actual attack numbered in the hundreds, if not more than a thousand.

And the day after the attack on the Capitol, 45% of Republicans claimed that they supported the attack on the Capitol.  That's almost half of Republicans who, probably knee-jerk and without thought, claimed to support insurrection against the government.

[rightleft22]

There were a few nuts mixed in with the bag but that hardly represents the vast majority of the protesters. Only when it's conservatives is that the case. Every other time with any other protest they are considered outliers and not representative of the whole.

I recall many Trumpeters declaring all BLM protesters as diffing the whole based on the worst.. except for the police when its just a few bad apples
This type of judgment is not a right or left thing where only one side does it its a tribalism thing

[TheDeamon]

Well from their own words they were trying to stop the certification of Joe Biden. they may have thought the election was stolen, but that was because they were misled and lied too by Trump and his cronies.  They wanted to stop the change of the Executive Office from Trump to Biden and some of them were willing to kill to stop it.  It is almost just blind luck that none of the Reps or Senators were injured or killed.  Some of the rioters had that intention and say they were just doing what Trump told them to do.

"Stop the Certification" is not the same thing as "Certify for Trump."

"Stop the Certification" means stop the certification, so that investigation and review of the relevant election processes can happen. Oddly enough, their ask was non-sensical in another way because if they had their wish, we'd have Acting President Nancy Pelosi in office right now.

[TheDrake]

And Biden isn't just betraying America either. He's betraying Latin America too, to the extent that we owe them the common decency not to make their troubles worse right now by encouraging mass migrations. You have countries where when people enter they have to go into a two week quarantine, and that's fine and prudent. As these tens of thousands of migrants are traveling from one end of Latin America to the other on their way to America to accept Joe Biden's gracious invitation are they stopping and quarantining for two weeks whenever they get to to a new population center? Biden is responsible super-spreading Covid-19 more than any other single person in the world right now.

Would there ever be a set of circumstances where you would allow the 125,000 asylum seekers in? Any of them? Condemning thousands to die because they might kill 0.1% as many as our own native anti-maskers is simply against humanitarian principles. If it weren't covid, it would be murder. If it weren't murder, it would be drunk driving. If it weren't drunk driving, it would be jobs. If it weren't jobs, it would be social services. Put what ever window dressing on it you want, your xenophobia is palpable. Perhaps the only circumstance where I could imagine you would accept even one foreign refugee, visa applicant, or immigrant is where there were an iron clad guarantee that not even one native born American would be inconvenienced in any way, let alone harmed.

[DonaldD]

"Stop the Certification" is not the same thing as "Certify for Trump."

You don't actually believe this is what those people were saying.

[TheDeamon]

"Stop the Certification" is not the same thing as "Certify for Trump."

You don't actually believe this is what those people were saying.

Well, "obviously" they knew what the investigation "was supposed to find" and as myself and others have said, the way the system was likely abused this past year, no amount of investigation if going to be able to prove or disprove anything except that the votes received were validated in accordance with instructions(which were sometimes legally dubious), and that minimal fraud was detected... Because the Democrats made sure the system was altered sufficiently that fraud (and abuse) couldn't be detected.

So what they wanted was pointless, there was no way they were going to get what they wanted, even with an investigation.

But in the meantime, if you were uneasy with the Patriot Act back in the day, keep an eye on what the Democrats do as they try to reenact nearly all of it, and potentially go even further in their pursuit of these "right wing extremists."

Where it actually is interesting to see the Conservatives have an unlikely ally in AOC:

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1348042526557663235

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @AOC Jan 9
As the Vice Chair of the Oversight subcommittee who ran investigations into domestic terror laws, I respectfully disagree.

Our problems on Wednesday weren’t that there weren’t enough laws, resources, or intelligence. We had them, & they were not used.

New laws aren't needed. Any sweeping expansion of Government power in response to the 6th of January is an attempt to grab power for the (Democrat) establishment, not about keeping the people safe.

[Grant]

Treason is throwing the borders wide open especially during a pandemic.

That was an amazing change of subject.  One second we're talking about the treason of people attempting to stop Congress from doing it's job, and the next we're talking about immigration. 

Let's break down treason, now. 

18 U.S.C. part 2381 defines treason as levying war against the United States, adhering to their enemies, and giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere. 

So the chief piece here is that the invading hordes are enemies of the United States. 

I mean, these are all people trying to become Americans.  They want to be on our side.  They want to join the team.  From there we somehow get to the point that we're calling them all enemies of the United States. 

Now, I grant that they are threatening to bypass the legal framework for entering the United States, which would make them illegal immigrants.  Being an illegal immigrant can surely be construed as being a criminal within the United States.  But we have plenty of criminals within the United States that are not illegal immigrants that are still not defined as enemies of the United States.  So I don't think it's fair to label them as enemies of the United States. 

Secondly, As far as I know, Biden has simply reversed several executive orders issued by L'Orange.  That's not necessarily treason since that's his prevue.  That's one of his powers.  I don't know about the wisdom of all executive orders or legislating through executive orders, but the power is there.  Somehow from there we have reached "opening wide the border".  The chief accusation is that by Biden reversing the executive orders of Chatte-grabber, his is "encouraging" these invading hordes.  I don't know if that holds up.  Biden isn't telling everybody to flood across the border and cross Mexico and that everyone will be welcome.  It's the same defense I admit that Perfect-caller has when it comes to inciting insurrection.  So if a horde of Guatemalans decide to create a caravan and head to the US, that's basically on them.  I will recall that there were several so called invasion hordes of these people coming to the US even while the Inciter-In-Chief was POTUS.  Was he guilty of encouraging them too?  If Mr. Sharpie can't stop the invading hordes, how can Biden be expected to stop them?  Every election I heard about a new invading horde.  I heard about them in 2018 and 2020.  From you, Cherry.  So if they couldn't be stopped from heading this way by the Defender of America Super Cheetoh, how can Biden? 

Now, when it comes to COVID I understand there are some major problems.  But you were complaining about the invading hordes even before COVID, Cherry.  So I don't think you would care if COVID wasn't a factor.

That being said, I'll stand by my statement that if a Guatemalan can make it all the way across Mexico, through the desert, and not catch COVID until they get to Tijuana, then make it across the Great Wall of Trump, then they should probably be given a medal, 40 acres, and a mule.  Or as I said before they just get a Trumper's job and we ship the Trumpers to Alaska, where they should never have to worry about Guatemalans or other brown hordes. 

[DonaldD]

Well, "obviously" they knew what the investigation "was supposed to find" and as myself and others have said, the way the system was likely abused this past year, no amount of investigation if going to be able to prove or disprove anything except that the votes received were validated in accordance with instructions(which were sometimes legally dubious), and that minimal fraud was detected... Because the Democrats made sure the system was altered sufficiently that fraud (and abuse) couldn't be detected.

I was going to point out that the abuse of the system wasn't exactly hidden - Trump, even Graham were quite open about inciting fraud.  But of course, that's not what you meant.

What you meant was the same changes that were done by Republicans, when done by Democrats, magically opened up avenues of fraud only available to Democrats, and in ways that are completely untraceable, because of course all Democrats are both super smart and super stealthy, and would never, ever involve turncoats and allow them to get wind of the Democrats' nefarious schemes.  And of course, that lack of evidence of fraud is actually proof that it did, in fact, occur.

And it also goes without saying, this led to literally millions of fraudulently miscast or miscounted votes across the country, in numerous independent jurisdictions with different controls in place... oh, right, this conspiracy also included the pre-election polls, which all overstated Biden's likely vote share...

Normally, I would point out that such a ridiculous dependence on so many independent conspiracies, all of them successful and successfully kept secret, is the purview of only the most credulous marks on the internet; unfortunately, there are tens of millions of people who seem to have turned off their brains in the service of their leader.

[TheDrake]

I'm just as inclined to shut down the FISA court system, although they can't actually abuse that avenue very easily. I remain against National Security Letters to gather information, although unfortunately the FBI retains that power. I am against mass collection of private data. Luckily, the proud boys and other assorted bozos don't make any of that necessary. Public information is easily gathered, sifted, and used to identify malevolent actors.

As for "couldn't" be detected. I can hop on one leg right now, and no one has any way of detecting it. If I try to get thousands of my friends and acquaintances to hop on one leg, I'm pretty sure somebody is going to notice. Either someone is going to brag about how great they were at hopping on one leg, or someone is going to spot them doing it, or somebody is going to ask the wrong person to hop on their leg and they are going to start asking around. Minimal amounts of fraud can indeed be perpetrated. No question. You aren't going to get thousands of people involved without leaving a trace.

[TheDeamon]

As for "couldn't" be detected. I can hop on one leg right now, and no one has any way of detecting it. If I try to get thousands of my friends and acquaintances to hop on one leg, I'm pretty sure somebody is going to notice. Either someone is going to brag about how great they were at hopping on one leg, or someone is going to spot them doing it, or somebody is going to ask the wrong person to hop on their leg and they are going to start asking around. Minimal amounts of fraud can indeed be perpetrated. No question. You aren't going to get thousands of people involved without leaving a trace.

Project Veritas had video of it happening, but again, "not on a mass scale" for you. But they certainly found the smoke. People were talking, but as only the talkers were caught, "not enough to influence the outcome."

[msquared]

I think you should take anything from Project Veritas with a grain of salt. Their track record for presenting the truth is "colorful" at best.

[LetterRip]

Veritas apparently induced a fraudulent affidavit

https://www.salon.com/2020/11/14/project-veritas-could-face-legal-liability-for-postal-workers-ballot-fraud-allegations-experts-say/

So you probably don't want to use them as a source.

[DonaldD]

In 2019, Project Veritas was given $4 million by Donors Trust for operations to undermine mail in voting... and their return on investment was a retracted, but extremely well-publicized, claim by that postal worker and not much else.

[TheDeamon]

In 2019, Project Veritas was given $4 million by Donors Trust for operations to undermine mail in voting... and their return on investment was a retracted, but extremely well-publicized, claim by that postal worker and not much else.

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2021/01/13/texas-ag-san-antonio-woman-in-project-veritas-video-arrested-on-election-related-charges/

SAN ANTONIO – A San Antonio campaign worker seen in an undercover video last year appearing to persuade a woman to change her vote faces a long list of felony charges after being arrested Wednesday, according to the Texas Attorney General’s Office.

Raquel Rodriguez faces charges of election fraud, illegal voting, unlawfully assisting people voting by mail, and unlawfully possessing an official ballot, according to a press release from AG Ken Paxton’s office.

Of course, this was her defense last October:
https://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/i-lied-woman-at-center-of-voter-fraud-accusations-speaks-out-says-none-of-it-was-true

"I don’t care again what party you are, I’m non-partisan,” Rodriguez says. “I feel horrible about that because reality is that I lied. I lied about a lot of stuff. Just to make sure I was enticing them just enough to find out what the bottom of this was. They asked for a proposal, I gave them a proposal."

The Project Veritas undercover told Rodriguez they were looking for a consultant for a future city council race in San Antonio.

"99 percent was bs to make a sale,” Rodriguez claims.

Uh-huh.

[DonaldD]

So... you are suggesting that the widespread fraud that was sufficient to change the election was perpetrated by people convincing people, in person, to change their votes, and in Texas, no less.

You realize this isn't evidence supporting any of the claims of mail vote fraud, right?  That if this is all they could find, with $4million, that argues against widespread fraud?

[LetterRip]

AG Paxton has securities fraud charges that he was trying to get a Trump pardon for so anything prior to Trump leaving office isn't necessarily going to have anything to do with the underlying case.

He has also been reported recently for additional crimes which will probably result in his bail being revoked.

https://www.honestaustin.com/2020/10/11/power-struggle-ken-paxton-mega-donor-investigation/

So he was extremely desperate for a Trump pardon.  I will be shocked if he isn't in jail within the reasonably near future.

[LetterRip]

Note that In not saying that because both key individuals involved in the accusation appear to have no morals and ha e motivations that could result in them engaging in shady behavior doesn't mean she is definitely innocent.  It could well be the case she is not.  I'm simply cautioning that corrupt sources with motivations to mislead tend to not make a convincing argument.

[TheDrake]

Everyone here has always admitted that fraud exists. We've had isolated reports of Republicans voting twice. Should that smoke lead us to conclude that Republicans had a coordinated effort to steal the election? Of course not, because that would be a ludicrous conclusion.

[DonaldD]

I was never under the impression that Senate Republicans (in sufficient numbers) would vote to convict Trump, but that 90% of them felt that the article of impeachment, alleging that the president was involved in encouraging an attack on Congress, is not worthy of trial, truly shows how far the party has fallen. 

It's not a question of whether they would convict - that should only be a function of what occurs during the trial; no, they felt that a president accused of involvement in an attack on the transfer of governmental power should not face even the risk of consequences for the alleged actions. The implication is, really, that no actions of a president will ever be considered worthy of a Senate impeachment trial.

[Aris Katsaris]

I'll go further and say that if you don't convict Trump, it's actually the beginning of the end for American democracy. Like Hitler getting punished with only a slap on the wrist for his Putsch, allowing him to eventually come back.

You'll have proven that a president can do whatever they want to try to become a dictator, and face no consequences if they fail.
So, they just have to try and try and try again, until eventually one of them succeeds.

Any president can just ask their VP to throw away any swing state votes he doesn't like, the president can just proclaim without evidence the election was stolen if it doesn't go his way, the president can rile up a mob to intimidate senators that don't do his bidding.... if you compound this, with "and he can never get punished for it", then it's just the end.

It needn't be Trump himself, and it needn't be a Republican president either, now that the precedent is set -- a Democrat dictator-wannabe will be just as just as willing to use this precedent. Perhaps you'll keep trudging along for 5 or 10 years, but the precedent of "no consequences if the president tries to do a coup" will have been set. Eventually it'll be done successfully, and you'll be a democracy-in-name-only, just like in Trump's beloved Russia.

[yossarian22c]

I was never under the impression that Senate Republicans (in sufficient numbers) would vote to convict Trump, but that 90% of them felt that the article of impeachment, alleging that the president was involved in encouraging an attack on Congress, is not worthy of trial, truly shows how far the party has fallen. 

According to Republicans, you can't punish a President after he loses an election. As long as his actions fail to keep him in power. He can do anything he likes and the Senate is impotent to convict him politically. Talk about surrendering a power granted to you in the constitution.

I get they want an excuse to vote not guilty without actually saying Trump is innocent but I thought the branches of government would be slightly more jealous of powers granted to them in the constitution.

[yossarian22c]

I was never under the impression that Senate Republicans (in sufficient numbers) would vote to convict Trump, but that 90% of them felt that the article of impeachment, alleging that the president was involved in encouraging an attack on Congress, is not worthy of trial, truly shows how far the party has fallen. 

Senator Susan Collins

I think it’s pretty obvious from the vote today that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the president will be convicted. Just do the math.

I think they know Trump is an embarrassment and guilty but they fear primaries more than general elections and care more about staying in power than honor or integrity.

This is going to be their excuse for voting not guilty. They don't want to condone his actions but don't want to hold him accountable either. So they are going to let him off on a manufactured technicality.

[oldbrian]

Shouldn't all of those senators who voted against the trial on constitutional grounds abstain?  I mean, if they think it is a breach of constitutional power to hold a trial, why would they participate?