So now that DC riots are over ...

[Wiploc]

I wonder whether the assets of the Republican party can be seized under RICO.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wonder whether the assets of the Republican party can be seized under RICO.

It doesn't really have much in the way of assets, does it?

 

[Bomb#20]

Nope. More importantly, you missed the point that Mr. Trump had lots of help in spreading and fomenting that mob.

Oh, like a rioter would have thought "Our President needs me to help save the nation from the election-stealing Democrats. But I'm not going to because my Congressman says Biden won." You're reversing cause and effect. There wasn't a mob because of all the Republicans on Trump's side; those Republicans were on his side because of the mob. They can't seriously have believed their shenanigans were actually going to overturn the election; and if they'd expected to bring about an attack on Congress they'd have absented themselves instead of hiding in back rooms breathing covid onto Democrats. But siding against Trump would have exposed them to a serious risk of getting primaried in 2022. Fostering a lie about a rigged election was just garden-variety cowardice.

If it's seditious to vote the wrong way, why is the question up for a vote in the first place?

Straw man much?

I lost you. If you weren't suggesting that those 147 votes were seditious, why did you bring them up?

 

[Bomb#20]

And? Fostering malicious lies is pretty much a congressthing's job description. If it's seditious to vote the wrong way, why is the question up for a vote in the first place?

Isn't that where is lies the weakness of Democracy? When one side lacks the care to sustaining Democracy, it is possible to seize the power... presuming a few other things are in step with their moves.

The question was up for a vote in the first place because at least one House and Senate member agreed to contest an election in Arizona because...

Last I saw, one member isn't a majority. If that's enough to bring it to a vote, it's because there's a law that says so -- a law passed by a majority.

Not because there was a mountain of evidence of fraud and voter intimidation as there was in 1876 but because... It was a lie, they knew it was a lie, and that is why it is seditious!

You understand that's a moral argument, don't you, not a legal argument? Congress votes for undemocratic garbage based on lies all the time. Marijuana prohibition is based on the lie that the feds have the authority to regulate whether people put plants in their bodies, plants that have never crossed state lines. Trying to win by finding clever ways to use the rules' gotchas to your own advantage is a game played enthusiastically by all sides of every dispute; it does not qualify as "promoting violent overthrow of the U.S. government".

 

[Keith&Co.]

Trump on the Caravan: "Can we shoot them? Can we shoot them in the legs?"
Trump on the Jan. Sixers: "We love you. You're very special."

Yes. Also, he suggested executing leakers.

And during his rallies, he endorsed violence against protestors who snuck in.

We should make a long list of these endorsements.

Don't forget telling the police association not to protect suspect's heads when putting them into the car. Knock 'em around a bit.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh, like a rioter would have thought "Our President needs me to help save the nation from the election-stealing Democrats. But I'm not going to because my Congressman says Biden won." You're reversing cause and effect. There wasn't a mob because of all the Republicans on Trump's side; those Republicans were on his side because of the mob. They can't seriously have believed their shenanigans were actually going to overturn the election; and if they'd expected to bring about an attack on Congress they'd have absented themselves instead of hiding in back rooms breathing covid onto Democrats. But siding against Trump would have exposed them to a serious risk of getting primaried in 2022. Fostering a lie about a rigged election was just garden-variety cowardice.

I find it fascinating you think you could know what these jackasses could or would seriously believe. One would think that their coming to DC at Mr. Trump's urging and their support of Trump would be sufficient evidence of their gullibility.

I lost you. If you weren't suggesting that those 147 votes were seditious, why did you bring them up?

For the very reason I said - they supported the President in his lies.

But, your question "If the vote was seditious, why was it taken?" has a false premise. Voting on whether or not to accept the results from a state is not, in and of itself, seditious. If there was evidence of malfeasance or widespread fraud, such a vote would make sense. Moreover, in the absence of that evidence, since the vote is mandated by the law, so it ought to be taken. And, it this instance, it does flush out the ideologues or dupes or seditionists (depending on their motivations).

 

[Bomb#20]

... They can't seriously have believed their shenanigans were actually going to overturn the election; and if they'd expected to bring about an attack on Congress they'd have absented themselves instead of hiding in back rooms breathing covid onto Democrats. But siding against Trump would have exposed them to a serious risk of getting primaried in 2022. Fostering a lie about a rigged election was just garden-variety cowardice.

I find it fascinating you think you could know what these jackasses could or would seriously believe. One would think that their coming to DC at Mr. Trump's urging and their support of Trump would be sufficient evidence of their gullibility.

But they didn't come to DC at Mr. Trump's urging; they came to DC because they work there. As you can see if you don't knee-jerk-post, "They" referred to Mr. Trump's supporters in Congress, not to the mob. As to how I know what the jackasses seriously believe, they are, to a man, successful politicians. I infer that they can count votes.

I lost you. If you weren't suggesting that those 147 votes were seditious, why did you bring them up?

For the very reason I said - they supported the President in his lies.

But why is that relevant? The argument was about whether they were "promoting violent overthrow of the U.S. government". Supporting a lie and voting to go along with a lie is nonviolent and not an overthrow.

But, your question "If the vote was seditious, why was it taken?" has a false premise.

But your reply has a false premise -- it's a misquotation.

And, it this instance, it does flush out the ideologues or dupes or seditionists (depending on their motivations).

In most cases, probably none of the above. Mostly it flushed out the cowards.

 

[laughing dog]

But they didn't come to DC at Mr. Trump's urging; they came to DC because they work there. As you can see if you don't knee-jerk-post, "They" referred to Mr. Trump's supporters in Congress, not to the mob. As to how I know what the jackasses seriously believe, they are, to a man, successful politicians. I infer that they can count votes.

Their actions were enabling and supporting Trump.

But why is that relevant? The argument was about whether they were "promoting violent overthrow of the U.S. government". Supporting a lie and voting to go along with a lie is nonviolent and not an overthrow.

If you cannot see how supporting the lies about the election which supported Trump's lies and gave support to the goals of the rioters, then discussion is pointless.

But your reply has a false premise -- it's a misquotation.

I did have the wrong quote, but my reply does not have a false premise. You wrote " If it's seditious to vote the wrong way, why is the question up for a vote in the first place?" But, your question has a false premise. Voting on whether or not to accept the results from a state is not, in and of itself, seditious. If there was evidence of malfeasance or widespread fraud, such a vote would make sense. Moreover, in the absence of that evidence, since the vote is mandated by the law, so it ought to be taken.

In most cases, probably none of the above. Mostly it flushed out the cowards.

I forgot - you can read minds.

 

[Elixir]

Gee, I don't know what political party would fathom of taking advantage of a notorious terrorist attack to implement draconian security legislation and impinge on civil liberties.

WHOOOSH!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You understand that's a moral argument, don't you, not a legal argument?

Most certainly the case! Adherence to Democracy is outside legal constraints. How many different traditions does the US have regarding the transition of power? None of those are laws, they are guidelines that have been accepted and morphed into traditions to respect our Democracy, to keep it a democracy.

The conflict presented in the Electoral College was based on absolutely nothing, and violated our Constitution and the intent of the laws. After 1876, the Safe Harbor law was created for a specific reason. And with 60 odd court cases and virtually no claims of fraud in court, members of Congress acted to reverse the result of elections. No legal basis, no moral basis, no evidential basis. Only because they sought to keep Trump in power. That is a Crime against our laws and our Constitution.

 

[Derec]

I wonder whether the assets of the Republican party can be seized under RICO.

Because nothing says "functioning democracy" like a One Party System.

 

[Derec]

You seem to misunderstand, Jimmy. The mob of rioters and looters at the capitol weren't being malicious or seditious, they were only being political.

Not any less political than the leftist mobs attacking courthouses, or trashing and occupying police precincts in places like Seattle and Minneapolis.

Or is violent attack on a government building somehow ok when the Leftist mob does it?

 

[laughing dog]

You seem to misunderstand, Jimmy. The mob of rioters and looters at the capitol weren't being malicious or seditious, they were only being political.

Not any less political than the leftist mobs attacking courthouses, or trashing and occupying police precincts in places like Seattle and Minneapolis.

Or is violent attack on a government building somehow ok when the Leftist mob does it?
View attachment 31463

Another irrelevant "whataboutism". Apparently it is really difficult to parse the obvious difference between a protest that gets out of hand and an intended assault on the seat of government with "protesters" chanting to kill the Vice President and the Speaker of the House in order to overturn the results of an election.

 

[Jarhyn]

You seem to misunderstand, Jimmy. The mob of rioters and looters at the capitol weren't being malicious or seditious, they were only being political.

Not any less political than the leftist mobs attacking courthouses, or trashing and occupying police precincts in places like Seattle and Minneapolis.

Or is violent attack on a government building somehow ok when the Leftist mob does it?
View attachment 31463

Another irrelevant "whataboutism". Apparently it is really difficult to parse the obvious difference between a protest that gets out of hand and an intended assault on the seat of government with "protesters" chanting to kill the Vice President and the Speaker of the House in order to overturn the results of an election.

Only for some.

Like, all through BLM, those some were talking about how violent the protests were, and that they needed to have the violent police response. Now they are saying the capital insurrection was "both sides". Well, you know what that means? It's a prescription for lots of cops, liberal use of force, and massive arrests!

But that's not the dialogue. They don't say "enforce against white nazis as hard as was done against BLM protests". Instead they are using it to hand wave the lack of response!

This is hypocrisy and authoritarianism at its finest with "rules for thee but not for me".

 

[Bomb#20]

I did have the wrong quote, but my reply does not have a false premise. You wrote " If it's seditious to vote the wrong way, why is the question up for a vote in the first place?" But, your question has a false premise. Voting on whether or not to accept the results from a state is not, in and of itself, seditious. If there was evidence of malfeasance or widespread fraud, such a vote would make sense. Moreover, in the absence of that evidence, since the vote is mandated by the law, so it ought to be taken.

Sure your reply had a false premise. You've altered the conditional from "If it's seditious to vote the wrong way..." to "Voting on whether or not to accept the results from a state...". The "the wrong way" part was a critical element of the conditional.

It's as though Alice is running for President on the American Communist Party ticket, and Bob votes for Alice, and Cindy claims it's seditious for Bob to vote for Alice, and Dave asks "If it's seditious to vote for Alice, why is whether Alice gets to be President up for a vote?", and then Ed says "Dave has a false premise. Voting for presidents is not, in and of itself, seditious." See the problem? Dave never implied Cindy was saying voting for presidents was seditious in and of itself. It's voting specifically for Alice that she alleged was seditious.

 

[Bomb#20]

You understand that's a moral argument, don't you, not a legal argument?

Most certainly the case! ... That is a Crime against our laws and our Constitution.

Those sentences are in conflict. It's only a Crime against our moral sensibilities.

...members of Congress acted to reverse the result of elections. No legal basis, no moral basis, no evidential basis. Only because they sought to keep Trump in power.

That makes them scoundrels. It doesn't make them criminals and it doesn't make them violent.

(And as noted upthread, they can count, which makes it highly unlikely that their goal was to keep Trump in power. Their goal was most likely to keep themselves in power.)

The conflict presented in the Electoral College was based on absolutely nothing, and violated our Constitution and the intent of the laws.

Congressthings vote to violate the Constitution and the intent of the laws all the time. They're allowed to do that. A legislature isn't Keith & Co.'s submarine where "All in favor..." means you don't have a choice.