4 4
JerryBaumchen

Jan. 6 Panel

Recommended Posts

(edited)
On 7/14/2022 at 5:19 PM, ryoder said:

 

14 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

So let's see them charged with 'tampering with evidence'.

Probably just drunk as usual.

Drunk Secret Service agents crash into White House barrier

Biden Secret Service agents sent home after drunk assault report in South Korea

The woman told police the US Secret Service Counter Assault Team member assaulted her when she told him he was drunk

They probably didn't want to take trump to the capitol building because it would interfere with drinking in the WH basement.

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Meanwhile, back at the distraction, two more brain dead jerk off's were sentenced to 44 months in prison. Hey, but more evidence is coming in and fewer people are watching. At least we have super awesome Fani Willis in Georgia on the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2022 at 1:02 PM, JoeWeber said:

I am properly pissed off that we're 18 months since an obvious coup attempt by a sitting US President and all we've done is put some hot headed morons in the can. There is no obvious indication that the DOJ will do anything beyond deploring the whole sorry mess.

That's probably because the DOJ actually understands legal definitions. Insurrection; yes. Sedition; yes.  ...but 2000 civilian nutters does not make a coup. Even a 'Trump told them to do it' argument would be a tough sell as no direct authority exists by a president over a civilian that compels them to the action.  The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. On that day Trump already had legal control of all those forces and did not use them to usurp control at the Capitol and did not countermand Pence's call for the National Guard. DOJ knows this even if Speaker's Corner does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Groan. I had thought Ken Buck was one of the less insane GOP people in CO, but I was obviously wrong. Buck represents CO District 4, which is the sparsely populated Eastern plains of CO. El Paso county is the area around Colorado Springs.

GOP chair in El Paso County says Congressman Ken Buck told him to submit false election results

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, metalslug said:

That's probably because the DOJ actually understands legal definitions. Insurrection; yes. Sedition; yes.  ...but 2000 civilian nutters does not make a coup. Even a 'Trump told them to do it' argument would be a tough sell as no direct authority exists by a president over a civilian that compels them to the action.  The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. On that day Trump already had legal control of all those forces and did not use them to usurp control at the Capitol and did not countermand Pence's call for the National Guard. DOJ knows this even if Speaker's Corner does not.

Hi slug,

If I tell a friend to burn my neighbor's house down, I am complicit.

IMO the fact that Trump was POTUS at the time means nothing.  If he was legally involved, he was legally involved.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi slug,

If I tell a friend to burn my neighbor's house down, I am complicit.

IMO the fact that Trump was POTUS at the time means nothing.  If he was legally involved, he was legally involved.

Jerry Baumchen

For sure. But while we're arguing that, let's just charge the bastard with manslaughter. Surely after Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony that charge can be legitimately made. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, metalslug said:

.but 2000 civilian nutters does not make a coup. 

So if a people took over a Capitol and the armed forces bases nearby, killed/imprisoned all the lawmakers and military leaders, and installed themselves as the new government - in your mind that would not be a coup?

Interesting.

But in any case, since there were military nutters involved - including active duty - your argument isn't really applicable.  When an active duty Marine major is part of the attempted coup you can't claim no military involvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, billvon said:

So if a people took over a Capitol and the armed forces bases nearby, killed/imprisoned all the lawmakers and military leaders, and installed themselves as the new government - in your mind that would not be a coup?

But that's not what happened.  Besides that fact; Were you not even reading the post? ; "...prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements."  Taking over (control of) the armed forces and neutralising (existing) military leaders is almost exactly what I said does constitute a coup. Please try to keep up.

11 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Surely after Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony that charge can be legitimately made. 

FYI  Cassidy Hutchinson wasn't even there and the agents who were there dispute it. They might as well ask you to testify to the event as I'm sure you also 'heard about it' somewhere.

11 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

IMO the fact that Trump was POTUS at the time means nothing.  If he was legally involved, he was legally involved.

Hence why the DOJ has not charged him.  It's also evident why yourself, bill & Joe are not contracted to the DOJ for your legal expertise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, metalslug said:

But that's not what happened.  Besides that fact; Were you not even reading the post? ; "...prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements."  Taking over (control of) the armed forces and neutralising (existing) military leaders is almost exactly what I said does constitute a coup. Please try to keep up.

FYI  Cassidy Hutchinson wasn't even there and the agents who were there dispute it. They might as well ask you to testify to the event as I'm sure you also 'heard about it' somewhere.

Hence why the DOJ has not charged him.  It's also evident why yourself, bill & Joe are not contracted to the DOJ for your legal expertise.

The Secret Service agents? She testified that Trump wanted the "mags" removed so armed thugs could enter the Ellipse. On a final note, I will never reply again to you on a serious matter when you play the game of using a multi-quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The Secret Service agents? She testified that Trump wanted the "mags" removed so armed thugs could enter the Ellipse. On a final note, I will never reply again to you on a serious matter when you play the game of using a multi-quote.

Fair enough. She had given testimony on more than one event and you had not specified which. I retract my reply to your comment. The 'multi-quote' is not a 'game', it's a forum feature. You can edit my quoted reply down to the relevant lines that you wish to reply to or you're of course welcome to withhold replies. None of us here owe each other.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Fair enough. She had given testimony on more than one event and you had not specified which. I retract my reply to your comment. The 'multi-quote' is not a 'game', it's a forum feature. You can edit my quoted reply down to the relevant lines that you wish to reply to or you're of course welcome to withhold replies. None of us here owe each other.     

d'accord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, metalslug said:

But that's not what happened.  Besides that fact; Were you not even reading the post? ; "...prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements."  Taking over (control of) the armed forces and neutralising (existing) military leaders is almost exactly what I said does constitute a coup. Please try to keep up.

If the Jan 6th coup attempt had worked, Trump would have maintained control of all those things when he wasn’t supposed to. That’s a coup.

What you are actually arguing here is that Jan 6th was not a successful coup. No shit, Captain Obvious. Any other difficult concepts you need to explain to us like what colour grass is, or whether rain falls up or down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jakee said:

Any other difficult concepts you need to explain to us like what colour grass is, or whether rain falls up or down?

You have repeatedly demonstrated a need for such explanations being fed to you. This is why I'll rather defer to the DOJ's judgement over yours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, metalslug said:

Taking over (control of) the armed forces and neutralising (existing) military leaders is almost exactly what I said does constitute a coup. Please try to keep up.

You do realise that takeovers by existing military leaders are the most common type of coup, right? Since, according to you, that is almost exactly what does not constitute a coup, what is it?

 

What happened in Myanmar last year if it wasn’t a coup? If it wasn’t a coup, was it legal?

 

See, this is what happens when your only goal is to force logic to fit whatever narrative the radical right wing media is currently feeding you. You just start arguing against reality and demonstrating (yet again) that you don’t have a clue what the concepts you’re spouting off about actually mean. You don’t know what cancel culture is, you don’t know what Woke is, and now you don’t even know what a coup is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, metalslug said:

You have repeatedly demonstrated a need for such explanations being fed to you. This is why I'll rather defer to the DOJ's judgement over yours. 

You know that there are huge taboos, complexities and constitutional uncertainties in the US over charging a President with anything at all? That a President not been my charged with something in no way implies he didn’t do something?

I fear that explanation is a step too far for you at the moment though. You need more work on the basics first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jakee said:

That a President not been my charged with something in no way implies he didn’t do something?

..and lefty fantasies do not imply that he did do something. Believing that a mere 2000 civilian yahoos in mob formation constitutes a viable coup attempt against a force as significant as the US... is like trying to make a legal argument that a spitwad strike constitutes 'attempted murder'. Good luck with that in any court of learned legal judgement. You really should leave this one to the professionals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Believing that a mere 2000 civilian yahoos in mob formation constitutes a viable coup attempt against a force as significant as the US

Armed civilian yahoos.

And they weren't up against the full force of the US Military, they were up against the unarmed Congress and their vastly outnumbered security.

The timing and location was extremely strategic. That the execution was completely screwed up doesn't make the intention go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, metalslug said:

..and lefty fantasies do not imply that he did do something. Believing that a mere 2000 civilian yahoos in mob formation constitutes a viable coup attempt

First, you missed out the part where it was happening in concert with a coordinated attempt to manipulate constitutional procedure and subvert the election results.

Second, I’ve highlighted the word that proves my first reply to you was correct. You’re not arguing that it wasn’t a coup attempt, you’re arguing that it was not a successful coup. Again, no shit Captain Obvious. 
 

Here’s a concept that needs to be fed to you, being a competent criminal is not a prerequisite for committing a crime. Many, many, many criminals are apprehended, charged and convicted because the criminal schemes they attempt to carry out are not viable.

24 minutes ago, metalslug said:

You really should leave this one to the professionals.

Baaaaahahahaha! Like you? A man so caught up in presenting twisted right wing excuses as fact that he is currently denying that military coups are coups?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

4 4