The Jan 6 Commission

[yossarian22c]

In this thread people are being very loose between the distinction between FBI agents and FBI informants. The first work for the government the latter may just have come across a plot and informed the FBI of it and the FBI let it proceed. So the fact that many of the people involved decided to contact the FBI when their compatriots deciding plotting crimes doesn't mean the FBI planned the attack.

[TheDeamon]

In this thread people are being very loose between the distinction between FBI agents and FBI informants. The first work for the government the latter may just have come across a plot and informed the FBI of it and the FBI let it proceed. So the fact that many of the people involved decided to contact the FBI when their compatriots deciding plotting crimes doesn't mean the FBI planned the attack.

Some of the informants involved in this case were brought in by the FBI agents. The only reason they were in the group was because the FBI asked for them to join.

[cherrypoptart]

It'd be funny if there's a case kind of like this except the people the FBI are trying to convince to do something illegal have or get a conscience and report everyone to the FBI or local law enforcement so you eventually have everyone in the group working for the government until eventually someone figures out what's going on and they all have a really good laugh.

[Fenring]

It'd be funny if there's a case kind of like this except the people the FBI are trying to convince to do something illegal have or get a conscience and report everyone to the FBI or local law enforcement so you eventually have everyone in the group working for the government until eventually someone figures out what's going on and they all have a really good laugh.

If you think this would be a great story idea you should check out The Man Who Was Thursday, by Chesterton. Not saying it's the best novel ever, but it's fun.

[NobleHunter]

It'd be funny if there's a case kind of like this except the people the FBI are trying to convince to do something illegal have or get a conscience and report everyone to the FBI or local law enforcement so you eventually have everyone in the group working for the government until eventually someone figures out what's going on and they all have a really good laugh.

There's been at least one drug bust where both the sellers and buyers were cops.

[msquared]

I wonder how George Soros got all of these crisis actors into the police force to give all of this fake testimony? I think it shows how long Soros has been planning this.

[Crunch]

You would have done it. You know you would.

[msquared]

Done what? Rioted and tried to over throw the election results? Attacked police protecting the Capitol? 

[Crunch]

How many of the Jan 6th rioters do you want me to site that they believed they were doing what Trump asked them to do? According to the database NPR is keeping on the court records 50 defendants (10%) have used Trump to explain their action. 10% of the people arrested so far have basically admitted guilt by saying they were doing what Trump wanted them to do.

You can't tell people an election and their country is being stolen from them, point them to the capital, tell them to fight like hell, and then cop out that by "fight" you mean primary the people who don't try to overturn the election in 2 years.

Well, the results are in:

The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.

"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."

As per usual, everything you've all been told about 1/6 is a lie. Russia hoax, pee tape, etc, etc. One lie after another.

Do you guys ever get tired of being lied to? I'm beginning to think you actually enjoy it. Seriously.

[msquared]

OK so it was not organized.  Was there still an attempt to overturn the results of the election? Did Trump and his cronies push this belief? 

[yossarian22c]

How many of the Jan 6th rioters do you want me to site that they believed they were doing what Trump asked them to do? According to the database NPR is keeping on the court records 50 defendants (10%) have used Trump to explain their action. 10% of the people arrested so far have basically admitted guilt by saying they were doing what Trump wanted them to do.

You can't tell people an election and their country is being stolen from them, point them to the capital, tell them to fight like hell, and then cop out that by "fight" you mean primary the people who don't try to overturn the election in 2 years.

Well, the results are in:

The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.

"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."

As per usual, everything you've all been told about 1/6 is a lie. Russia hoax, pee tape, etc, etc. One lie after another.

Do you guys ever get tired of being lied to? I'm beginning to think you actually enjoy it. Seriously.

So now your contention is that almost no one showed up planning violence, attended a "peaceful" Trump rally then en masse decided to go storm the capital building during the certification of the electoral college vote. You aren't exactly making a strong case for Trump not being responsible for the violence that day.

[Fenring]

OK so it was not organized.  Was there still an attempt to overturn the results of the election? Did Trump and his cronies push this belief?

There seems to be an inability by people on the left to understand the motivations here, so that is driving a lot of the definition games. You have to put yourself in the position of believing that corruption has enabled a false election result to be announced as a victory, and that the powers that be are going along with it. Just assume for the moment this is really what happened. What would you do? Sit at home, eating popcorn, and say oh well? Would you march on Washington? Participate in a riot if no one would listen? How far is it legitimate to go to oppose a quasi-coup taking place? The founders would probably have a different answer than a modern person, the latter of which tend to default to "what can I do about it anyhow" as a sort of apathetic resignation. To an extent it's actually good (in theory) if people truly would not tolerate corruption overriding the legitimate system of governance and elections. Many would argue that it's sheer cowardice to stay home and do nothing when a travesty of justice is afoot. Liberals in particular seem to be quite in favor of major demonstrations to oppose bad things.

The only thing missing from the equation here is the premise itself: was there or was there not a fake or corrupt result announced for the election? I think the entire matter rests on this point, and any evaluation of the rioters in the absence of this context is misleading at best. If they truly thought they were opposing a coup, then strictly speaking they were fighting for all of America (even if it was for their guy in particular in that instance). So why did they think that? It comes down, once again, to info wars. Information has become a game of narratives, not of facts. This has been a long time coming, WWII being the originator of the concept, the 24-hour new cycle bringing in the mentality, and the internet bringing in the tech. Now there is no curation of facts, only battles over who can be made to believe what. In a system like this, I can only blame the system itself for generating such stupid results as this. The people themselves almost can't be blamed (maybe a little) for believing what their 'news' stations tell them. No one needed to mastermind the riot; it was enough that the information was going around. Their caring about their own country led to the rest.

[msquared]

So they bought the Big Lie and it was organized? I mean over 60 court cases, many before Trump appointed judges, and Trump looses all of them.  No evidence of large scale fraud, but Trump still says it happened, with no evidence.  One of Trumps biggest supporters, Mike Lindel, had a Cybe Symposium to show all the data and even his own experts called his evidence turds.

Ultimatly Trump is a poor looser who would rather burn down our democracy than admit he lost.  Notice how he is not spending any of his own money on the audits and the recounts? 

[yossarian22c]

OK so it was not organized.  Was there still an attempt to overturn the results of the election? Did Trump and his cronies push this belief?

... The people themselves almost can't be blamed (maybe a little) for believing what their 'news' stations tell them. No one needed to mastermind the riot; it was enough that the information was going around. Their caring about their own country led to the rest.

The information was going around because Trump and his cronies were spreading it around. Therefore Trump can and should be held responsible.

[msquared]

I guess we can let all of the BLM protester off the hook as well, since they were protesting actual slavery and hundreds of years of racisim? I mean what would we expect them to do?  Hell, I am surprised they did not do more. The treatment of the black community for the past 200-300 years more than justifies their reaction, right?

[Fenring]

The information was going around because Trump and his cronies were spreading it around. Therefore Trump can and should be held responsible.

What would have happened, do you suppose, if FOX news had (for example) been pushing the story of "the facts do not agree with President Trump, he is just making things up"? And what if all conservative media sources had likewise reported facts in opposition to Trump's tweets? Do you think everyone would have still done a potentially life-changing thing like a riot in Washington based purely on Trump's tweets, even though their own news networks told them it was hogwash?

[Wayward Son]

So, Fenring, you're saying that Fox News and these other conservative outlets that repeated the lies without question are also to blame?

I can live with that.

They are certainly not blameless, since there are counterexamples (all of the Democrats and all of the other news sources) who actually tried to dispel the lies.

What it all comes down to is that, although the insurrection itself was not organized in any top-down structure, being more of a riot with the intent to stop the government from performing its duties, it was the result of a group of people who roused up their followers using lies, with the specific intent of overturning an election that any reasonable person would know was legitimate and that they, most likely (unless they were idiots and therefore unfit to lead), knew was legitimate, as much as is humanly possible.

That their followers were gullible enough to believe and embrace those lies was the whole point of the exercise.  And, although they did not know specifically what those followers would do, the hope was that they would somehow be able to overturn the election.

None of this absolves Trump and his cronies from blame.  It just expands the circle of cronies to include Fox News and their ilk. 

[Grant]

What would have happened, do you suppose, if FOX news had (for example) been pushing the story of "the facts do not agree with President Trump, he is just making things up"? And what if all conservative media sources had likewise reported facts in opposition to Trump's tweets? Do you think everyone would have still done a potentially life-changing thing like a riot in Washington based purely on Trump's tweets, even though their own news networks told them it was hogwash?

Quite possibly. 

I would care to bet that among the core group of Trump supporters that made up the people who attended the rallies and assaulted the Capitol, that they would have believed Cheetoh Jezzus over, I dunno, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.  Fox News producers knew it too, when they allowed them to say things they knew were bs.  They didn't want to lose ratings.  I don't know who in this case is the dog or the tail.

So there were plenty of individuals guilty of collaboration with the BS.  I don't think it absolves anyone.  They're all guilty in one way or another.  The Great 5th Grade Communicator.  The people at Fox News who let it go on.   The people who fell for the BS and basically attempted an insurrection without any plan. 

But it's good to see that people are trying to spread the blame out now.  It's a step in the right direction.  At least they're admitting now that the facts did not support the lies being spread. 

[Fenring]

So, Fenring, you're saying that Fox News and these other conservative outlets that repeated the lies without question are also to blame?

I can live with that.

I would include any 'news' network that spreads propaganda and narrative-building in the mix. The fact that this time the bad event was right-wing is merely incidental. For-profit news is probably going to result in something like this kind of atmosphere, absent strict government regulation.

That their followers were gullible enough to believe and embrace those lies was the whole point of the exercise.  And, although they did not know specifically what those followers would do, the hope was that they would somehow be able to overturn the election.

I doubt they were anyone's "followers". They were just people who thought they needed to do something about a problem. You can argue that they were dupes about the nature of the problem, but they weren't some kind of goon squad assembled to go and sow dischord.

[TheDeamon]

I guess we can let all of the BLM protester off the hook as well, since they were protesting actual slavery and hundreds of years of racisim? I mean what would we expect them to do?  Hell, I am surprised they did not do more. The treatment of the black community for the past 200-300 years more than justifies their reaction, right?

Have any meaning number of BLM protesters actually been brought to court? Prosecutors seemed to be almost eager to let them walk.

[TheDrake]

I guess we can let all of the BLM protester off the hook as well, since they were protesting actual slavery and hundreds of years of racisim? I mean what would we expect them to do?  Hell, I am surprised they did not do more. The treatment of the black community for the past 200-300 years more than justifies their reaction, right?

Have any meaning number of BLM protesters actually been brought to court? Prosecutors seemed to be almost eager to let them walk.

People keep saying that, but I haven't seen any evidence that prosecutors ignored or refused to charge individuals who threatened or committed bodily harm.

[msquared]

TheDemon

Maybe becuase most of the people arrested during the BLM protest did not do anything wrong?

I seem to remember that during the BLM protests there were mass arrests and then people were released a day or two later when the police could not find evidence that those arrested had done anything wrong.  The police seemed to arrest the non violent protester and not the people causing the problems.

For the Jan 6 people I think almost no one was arrested that day. But the police and FBI investigated social media and video recordings and tracked people down.  So they only arrested people who they had evidence of commiting crimes. They may have been minor crimes, but crimes none the less.  I do not think any one who stayed outside the Capitol building has been arrested.  Peaceful protesters were in no danger.

I wonder why the difference in how the crowd was handled?

[yossarian22c]

I guess we can let all of the BLM protester off the hook as well, since they were protesting actual slavery and hundreds of years of racisim? I mean what would we expect them to do?  Hell, I am surprised they did not do more. The treatment of the black community for the past 200-300 years more than justifies their reaction, right?

Have any meaning number of BLM protesters actually been brought to court? Prosecutors seemed to be almost eager to let them walk.

People keep saying that, but I haven't seen any evidence that prosecutors ignored or refused to charge individuals who threatened or committed bodily harm.

Or committed crimes more serious than failing to disperse when the police instructed them. Looting, theft, assault are all being pursued (to my knowledge) when there is evidence to support those crimes.

[Grant]

Or committed crimes more serious than failing to disperse when the police instructed them. Looting, theft, assault are all being pursued (to my knowledge) when there is evidence to support those crimes.

Ehhh.  My understanding is that until recently, California and Washington State was turning a blind eye and letting a bunch of stuff slide.  I don't know if that's right wing propaganda, but I'm willing to entertain that it might be true. 

That being said, I'm in favor of all criminal activities involved in riotous mobs should be pursued by law enforcement and prosecuted.  Regardless of being BLM or MAGA-Nutjob.   

[msquared]

I agree but if they were not part of a riotous mob, just peacefull protesters standing around yelling and chanting, they should not be charged or even arrested.  Just like the white people at the Capitol.

[msquared]

Ok so the Capitol cop who shot Ashli Babbit finally gave an interview.  He talked about the chaos of the riot and hearing other officers on the radio talk about being attacked and maced.  How he feared for his life and the lives of the Congress people in the chamber behind him. How he warned the people breaking down the windows and doors and how he finally shot.

Let's see how the conservatives play this?  I mean he did not shoot her in the back as she ran away.  He only fired one shot not empty his clip into the crowd. He warned them time and time again to leave.   I think his only crime was being a black cop who shot a white woman.  I mean you have to have some standards.

[msquared]

Oh and the story that BLM protesters were let off scott free is a myth as well.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/records-rebut-claims-unequal-treatment-095934209.html

[TheDeamon]

Oh and the story that BLM protesters were let off scott free is a myth as well.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/records-rebut-claims-unequal-treatment-095934209.html

An Associated Press review of court documents in more than 300 federal cases stemming from the protests sparked by George Floyd’s death last year shows that dozens of people charged have been convicted of serious crimes and sent to prison.

The AP found that more than 120 defendants across the United States have pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial of federal crimes including rioting, arson and conspiracy. More than 70 defendants who've been sentenced so far have gotten an average of about 27 months behind bars. At least 10 received prison terms of five years or more.

Now this becomes a matte of scale. 600 people involved in the Jan 6th events as per reporting I've seen filter through here?

How many thousands of people involved in mayhem as it relates to "George Floyd protests?"

[msquared]

You see I do not think there has been any proof of thousands involved with mayhem at BLM rallies.  Just like the rally on Jan 6 was much larger then the number of people who actually invaded the Capitol, the BLM rallies were much larger since they were in several states.

There were more mass arrests during the BLM marches than there were at Jan 6. But as I said before most of those arrested were released when no evidence of them doing anything wrong was presented. The violent protesters and the looters were arrested and prosecuted.  Now did LE get every single one?  Of course not, but to say that the BLM people who were arrested were all set free and not prosecuted or convicted is ignoring the facts.

[alai]

How many thousands of people involved in mayhem as it relates to "George Floyd protests?"

I don't have that number readily to hand, but if memory serves, 93% of BLM protests (as reported at some point, presumably a still-changing number) have been entirely non-violent.  That's 93% of the entire protests, not merely 93% of the total number of protesters.  Whereas 100% of "trying to violently overturn the results of a democratic election, but somehow not an attempted coup, #becausereasons" resulted in five deaths.

[Wayward Son]

And now, Congressional Republicans are dabbling with obstruction of Congress:

“If these companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States,” McCarthy wrote.

McCarthy did not cite which law prohibits telecommunications companies from complying with the committee’s request.

“If companies still choose to violate federal law, a Republican majority will not forget and will stand with Americans to hold them fully accountable under the law,” he said.

(Emphasis mine.)

Of course he doesn't quote any such law, because there isn't any such law that applies.   And he uses the nice little "we will not forget" threat, which doesn't exactly say what they will do, but is a pretty strong implicit threat.

But why be implicit?  Marjorie Taylor Greene makes it as explicit as you can.

“Well, yeah!” Carlson replied to Greene. “I mean, demanding your text messages if they don’t like your politics? Now we’ve been tough on Kevin McCarthy for being weak. That statement is not weak. That statement is a flat out promise, threat, whatever you want to call it. If you do this, there are consequences.”

“These telecommunications companies, if they go along with this, they will be shut down,” Greene said. “And that’s a promise.”

“Good,” Carlson replied. “I hope they’re afraid of you. They should be.”

(Emphasis mine.)

So the Republicans have made it explicit that, if any companies cooperate with a Congressional committee's requests, they will be shut down.  That is a mafia technique.  That is flat-out intimidation.  That is flat-out obstruction of Congress.

That is what the supposed "Law and Order" party has become.  A mafia with the American flag wrapped around them. 

Makes you wonder what they are so scared of. 

[msquared]

As  long as it is their Law and Order.

The ones who support this have always said "What have you got to hide?". Now it seems like they have something to hide.

[alai]

McCarthy's "will stand with Americans to hold them fully accountable under the law".

Even before we get to the standard-issue Greene rule-by-decree authoritarianism, that's already a pretty grotesque flouting of the most basics tenets of separation of powers.  Not to mention, of retrospectivity.  If it were already against the law, it would merely need to be prosecuted.  If you're taking legislative action against something that was legal at the time, that's Act of Attainder type of stuff.

[TheDrake]

Is powell still available to fight this illegal subpoena in court voting non existent law? If the biden administration wanted to, they could have pulled all this info using a national scoring letter, I think. Then we wouldn't even know about it.

[Seriati]

And now, Congressional Republicans are dabbling with obstruction of Congress:

Actually, Congressional Democrats are engaged in an unConstitutional (and illegal) invasion of privacy.  Or can you provide the citation to Congresses authority here?

I note, the directive from the Congressional Democrats was to be prepared to provide the information secretly, and without subpeona and directed anyone who did not believe they could do so to contact the Democrats in Congress.  That is a violation of rights.

“If these companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States,” McCarthy wrote.

And you think that's incorrect?  Federal law prohibits turning over this information without a lawful subpeona.  Congresses ability to issue a subpeona is limited, and there hasn't even been lipservice to complying with that.  In any event, challenging an unlawful act of Congress to obtain your personal information is the right of every American.

Are you going on record that politicians now have the right to demand your personal information in secret and without any opportunity for you to challenge that in court?  The left has fallen very far indeed in their view of civil liberties.

McCarthy did not cite which law prohibits telecommunications companies from complying with the committee’s request.

So?  Are you suggesting that your own ignorance of law, or incompetence at research is somehow a problem of McCarthy's?

Of course he doesn't quote any such law, because there isn't any such law that applies.   And he uses the nice little "we will not forget" threat, which doesn't exactly say what they will do, but is a pretty strong implicit threat.

Okay.  Sure no such law applies, keep lying to yourself.

So the Republicans have made it explicit that, if any companies cooperate with a Congressional committee's requests, they will be shut down.  That is a mafia technique.  That is flat-out intimidation.  That is flat-out obstruction of Congress.

Republicans made it clear that if such companies give in to the mafia demands of the Democrats that they turn over your personal records in violation of law and your Constitutional rights those companies will be held to account in the future.  We all know they won't be held to account today because Fake President Biden's DOJ does not believe in neutral application of the law but only in outcome based (ie pro-Democrat) actions.

The ONLY REASON these companies would comply with committees unlawful requests to turn over information secretly without a court order is because of the mafia style techniques engaged in by the left, by the flat out intimidation of the left.  It's literally the rule of the left to threaten to impose sanctions on anyone that doesn't give them what they want whether or not the law supports them.

That is what the supposed "Law and Order" party has become.  A mafia with the American flag wrapped around them. 

I wouldn't describe the Democrats as a Law and Order party, and they're they are the only ones that operate like the mafia so not sure how your claim works.

But keep on spreading misinformation and narrative, I'm sure it's not going to bite you in the rear at some point (again).

Makes you wonder what they are so scared of. 

They're scared of living under a system where the government is synomous with a single party's illegal goals, and the Rule of Law is replaced with the Rule of Might.  Seems like you believe you'll be on the side of the mighty so you're cool with it.

[Wayward Son]

Seriati, if you happen to know which law prohibits the Committee's request, it would behoove you cite that law, rather than imply that I should be able to find it.

Because I have it from a source I trust that no such law exists.  Thus, asking me to find that law is the equivalent to having me go on a snipe hunt. 

So why don't you educate us as to which law McCarthy is referring to, rather than acting like one of those lying Republicans and saying I'm lying to myself. 

[alai]

McCarthy's 'tell' is that he doesn't say "it's illegal, we'll see you in court" -- and as I understand it, they could argue they have standing on this under the Perlman doctrine, so at the very least they can see them in court to test whether they can see them in court.  Instead he blusters about a hypothetical future "Republican majority" -- it's a crude threat of reprisals, as I pointed out.  https://youtu.be/K_MIECLQ6vU?t=142

Seriati's 'tell' is the mindless name-calling at vast length, and repeatedly begging the question -- it's illegal because I keep saying it is, I have no need for mere specific statutes or articles!

Then again, that's pretty much why the pyramid of arguments is indeed a pyramid.  The lowest-quality tropes are also by far the most abundant.

[TheDeamon]

McCarthy's 'tell' is that he doesn't say "it's illegal, we'll see you in court" -- and as I understand it, they could argue they have standing on this under the Perlman doctrine, so at the very least they can see them in court to test whether they can see them in court.  Instead he blusters about a hypothetical future "Republican majority" -- it's a crude threat of reprisals, as I pointed out.  https://youtu.be/K_MIECLQ6vU?t=142

Seriati's 'tell' is the mindless name-calling at vast length, and repeatedly begging the question -- it's illegal because I keep saying it is, I have no need for mere specific statutes or articles!

Protection against "Unreasonable search and seizure" is a constitutional right. Although jurisprudence on material held by third parties makes that very grey.

Of course, there also is the possibility that a legal challenge against the request, as made by the Democrats, would fail on Constitutional grounds, should someone bother to challenge it in court.

Unconstitutional conduct on the part of the government is illegal conduct by the government, although it may not be criminal(because the government didn't see a reason to criminalize it).

But I could see people rallying around an effort to punish corporations that willingly aid and abet what they consider to be violations of their constitutional rights.

[TheDeamon]

"The other shoe" to be thrown around in that argument is some of those companies likely have TOS/Privacy policies that they'll potentially be violating by complying with the Commission's request, since they're not acting in a law enforcement capacity and their investigation is not criminal in nature.

That some of these same companies have previously gone up to bat to protect the privacy of their customers in the past, if they don't do so this time, they are making a political decision to comply rather than let the courts decides. Political solutions to political problems sounds about right.

And considering that one of the signs of fascism is when the private sector is moving in lock step with the political party in control of the government without challenging it, people really need to think hard about what they're witnessing here.

[msquared]

Well Trump, the most transparent President in History (trademark pending) is fighting for Executive Privilege he does not really have since he is not the Executive any more. There is settled law that the current President gets to decide that.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-files-lawsuit-block-release-205805309.html

I wonder what Trump is hiding as he fights all of these law suits.

[TheDeamon]

Well Trump, the most transparent President in History (trademark pending) is fighting for Executive Privilege he does not really have since he is not the Executive any more. There is settled law that the current President gets to decide that.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-files-lawsuit-block-release-205805309.html

I wonder what Trump is hiding as he fights all of these law suits.

This gets into weird legal Grey-zone stuff. Trump is still a potential 2024 presidential candidate, where it is "reasonable" to presume Joe Biden, or designated surrogate, would be running against Trump on that ticket.

Asking for some form of Arbitration in that kind of circumstance is justified.

The other problem is that traditionally the Federal Government tends to be rather "hands off" when it comes to prosecuting former presidents, at least until Trump. That's setting precedents that will be hard to roll back once set. There are no good answers to this situation, the best solution would have been to not have Trump in office in the first place, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

[msquared]

What grey zone?  It is settled law that the current Executive gets to decide this, not the previous one. This is a delay tactic. 

[TheDrake]

Personally, I don't think prosecution is the goal for most people - especially those in government. The goal, in my opinion, is to ensure that if Trump and his inner circle actively or passively supported the violence that they never are able to serve in government posts via popular opinion. Of course many of Trump's supporters wouldn't abandon him if he was recorded chanting "Hang Mike Pence". They'd shrug it off saying he was joking about it, or that it was just hyperbole, or that the paedophile Democrats must be destroyed at all costs. But the ones in the middle that switched their vote from Trump to Biden in 2020, those might care about what actually happened in the White House in the days leading up to 1/6.

It is an interesting idea to think about potential conflict of interest. In the worst case, the administration could cherry pick privilege to suppress any mitigation, like Trump expressing concern about potential violence or asking about preparedness. One would assume, however, that Trump and his team would have already made that available - and we know publicly that he sat and did nothing as it unfolded.

Knowing if he was watching his TV with glee at the actions of his unhinged supporters is most definitely in the public interest. Even more so if he took action to delay any response from law enforcement or others. The fact that this also helps any potential opponents in future elections does not outweigh that need.

[NobleHunter]

If we could agree that Trump is an egregiously bad President, then there wouldn't a problem of precedent. There is a point when we should be prosecuting former Presidents, or at least taking a long hard look at what they were up to.

[cherrypoptart]

It would be easier to be harder on Trump if Biden wasn't such a total disaster. One protest that got out of hand and Trump should never be allowed to serve in office again as opposed to all the Democrats who fueled months of violent deadly riots during a pandemic which has turned into a police pullback and murder epidemic but that's fine and to be wholeheartedly supported because "racism", not to mention all of the Democrats' last minute voting shenanigans that called into question the integrity of our elections and against which peaceful protests are totally understandable.

"If we could agree that Trump is an egregiously bad President, then there wouldn't. be a problem of precedent."

And that's a big problem when you take a good look around and see our country sliding into oblivion, and not just our country but others as well first and foremost Afghanistan. With every day that Biden is in office, Trump starts to look better and better.

And that's just with what is actually happening right now, not even counting Biden and his string pullers' plans on so many other fronts to take this country down, from Supreme Court packing to wealth taxes, energy crisis and gas prices to inflation, crime, and the border with payments to illegals that are hundreds of thousands of dollars more than what the families of the Marines received after Biden got them killed while being routed by the Taliban out of Kabul.

You can almost hear echoes of Saddam Hussein and Gadhafi on the warm Florida wind but in Trump's voice, "Do you miss me yet?"

For much of America the answer is yes and as we sink deeper into the problems Biden is creating it's going to be yes for more and more.

[wmLambert]

The rally on the 6th was legal. Proper documents and proper instructions by Trump to obey all legal niceties. Pelosi refused requests for beefed up security as documented. Security is on camera inviting protestors onto the grounds and through the doors. No invasion.

In all the investigations no usage of "insurrection" was ever used - yet the Democrats use it as a buzz word.

Compare it to the BLM uprisings. Zero violence and zero deaths - vs months of invasions, looting, murder, and destruction of federal buildings and properties. One is anathema to the Democrats for purely politically reasons - and 0ne they supported and were given license.

The Republicans recently called out by sleazy Democrats had nothing to do with the march, itself. They throw mud to see if it sticks. Media is sient.

[msquared]

WmLambert

Zero violence?  Zero deaths?

How about Babbit?  Or all of the officers beaten by the crowds?

Or the breaking down of windows and doors.

Do not confuse Trumps rally with what happened at the Capital. Trumps rally was probably legal. What happened after (maybe after he incited them) was not .

[wmLambert]

Unarmed Babbit was shot by a Dem hireling, who has been protected and hidden away. Name an incident where police were attacked by GOP protestors. Yes, there were some Dem agitators identified in the crowd - but just without Tiki Torches so the lame brain media couldn't identify them to their satisfaction. Even the few protestors arrested and thrown in jail without a trial have never been charged with violence.

There are legal get out of jail free cards handed out when police invite crowds into the building as has been documented. No destruction of property. Not even ripping up papers like Pelosi did at the SOTU.

Shop owners were killed by Democrat-sponsored protestors. Where is your scales of justice? Name one report where the word "Insurrection" was used.

[yossarian22c]

Unarmed Babbit was shot by a Dem hireling, who has been protected and hidden away. Name an incident where police were attacked by GOP protestors. Yes, there were some Dem agitators identified in the crowd - but just without Tiki Torches so the lame brain media couldn't identify them to their satisfaction. Even the few protestors arrested and thrown in jail without a trial have never been charged with violence.
...

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054395264/capitol-rioter-hit-police-officer-3-years-prison-scott-fairlamb

A New Jersey gym owner who punched a police officer during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol has been sentenced to more than three years in prison. Scott Fairlamb's sentencing on Wednesday to 41 months in prison
...
Lamberth said Fairlamb's actions struck at "the heart of our democracy." He had pleaded guilty, avoiding a trial.

Over 650 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the Jan. 6 riot, including more than 100 accused of assaulting law enforcement officers. More than 120 defendants have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors that carry a maximum of six months imprisonment.

How do you feel now? A guilty plea for violence at the capital. Another 100 assault charges outstanding.

[msquared]

Yossarian, that guy was a Antifa agitator, paid for by Soros. No true Trump supporter would ever do something like that.