1. #13561
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I doubt the thread mainstream that it's only Garland's cowardice that is stopping it. I wager he's waiting for the Jan 6th's conclusion and referral, so it doesn't end up like the Manhattan DA's case on Trump fraud. But feel free to continue believing as you will; I'm not some crusader to make everybody into skeptics like me.
    You aren't a skeptic. You maliciously push propaganda takes vomited into your mouth by mama bird.

  2. #13562
    The Lightbringer tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    3,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    If only you were an actual skeptic.
    I encourage you to be skeptical of skeptics. This is a good direction.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  3. #13563
    The Lightbringer tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    3,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    I'm more skeptical of people who post already disproven propaganda repeatedly while calling themselves skeptics than actual skeptics.
    You keep onto this and expand it, and I'll remain unconvinced at the buffet of topics lefties dismiss as disproven propaganda. We'll probably have news from Garland to get back into in not too many months -- I expect him to have something to say about Meadows or Trump before midterms, and they're only 7 months off! It makes no sense for Dems to fail to publish something from the Jan 6th committee past then, seeing as how if Republicans take the House, they'd be able to dissolve the committee.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  4. #13564
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You keep onto this and expand it, and I'll remain unconvinced at the buffet of topics lefties dismiss as disproven propaganda. We'll probably have news from Garland to get back into in not too many months -- I expect him to have something to say about Meadows or Trump before midterms, and they're only 7 months off! It makes no sense for Dems to fail to publish something from the Jan 6th committee past then, seeing as how if Republicans take the House, they'd be able to dissolve the committee.
    Umm, you do know they have published a lot of stuff from the Jan 6th committee, you just fucking ignored it.

  5. #13565
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    The Jan 6th committee has been signaling they have the goods. They're the ones with all the honored subpoenas disclosing texts and call logs. Maybe Garland isn't a dummy and doesn't have a chargeable crime to pursue in an investigation. He has the Meadows referral on his desk right now, and Bannon's trial is in July.
    Seditious Conspiracy.

    You're not fooling anyone.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  6. #13566
    The Lightbringer tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    3,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Seditious Conspiracy.

    You're not fooling anyone.
    Hahahahaha. Garland commits political suicide trying to get Trump on that now, but he may pray the Jan 6th committee gets enough through its actions to prove it. Garland has an easy job beating the pressure if the people leveling it are the kind of wild-eyed activist types.

    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    Umm, you do know they have published a lot of stuff from the Jan 6th committee, you just fucking ignored it.
    Trump doesn't go down on what's been leaked thus far. This is exactly my point. They've got nothing rising to a good case, ignoring the rumors right now--just whats been released--and I have to think you want Trump to beat the rap by blowing your load prematurely. It's like internet progressive wannabe lawyers read too much Slate and HuffPo and go off, and Garland is in his office knowing it's all shit until he gets more (hinted at the existence of more from current Jan 6th committee drops in cases, not publishing the evidence but pointing to its existence), perhaps from the Jan 6th committee.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  7. #13567
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Hahahahaha. Garland commits political suicide trying to get Trump on that now, but he may pray the Jan 6th committee gets enough through its actions to prove it. Garland has an easy job beating the pressure if the people leveling it are the kind of wild-eyed activist types.
    Way to move that goal post from "no chargeable crime to investigate."
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  8. #13568
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    81,973
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Hahahahaha. Garland commits political suicide trying to get Trump on that now
    That filing federal charges could even potentially be "political suicide" for an Attorney General is, fundamentally, proof that the system of justice in the USA is deeply corrupt. Bragging that it's corrupt in your favor is not an argument.


  9. #13569
    The Lightbringer tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    3,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Way to move that goal post from "no chargeable crime to investigate."
    Technically, you can charge him with things that he walks away innocent, waste everybody's time, and spawn a buncha "broken justice system" articles (depending on who you ask, this is a win). Manhattan DA had that choice on the first leg of a fraud case. He could've brought a case with poor evidence and a low hope of getting a conviction, but decided to back off for now, causing a couple resistance types to resign. That grand jury goes kaput at the end of the month.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  10. #13570
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Hahahahaha. Garland commits political suicide trying to get Trump on that now, but he may pray the Jan 6th committee gets enough through its actions to prove it. Garland has an easy job beating the pressure if the people leveling it are the kind of wild-eyed activist types.

    Trump doesn't go down on what's been leaked thus far. This is exactly my point. They've got nothing rising to a good case, ignoring the rumors right now--just whats been released--and I have to think you want Trump to beat the rap by blowing your load prematurely. It's like internet progressive wannabe lawyers read too much Slate and HuffPo and go off, and Garland is in his office knowing it's all shit until he gets more (hinted at the existence of more from current Jan 6th committee drops in cases, not publishing the evidence but pointing to its existence), perhaps from the Jan 6th committee.
    They have ALL OF THE EVIDENCE NEEDED to charge Trump with seditious conspiracy.

    And ALL of the stuff that has been published, is enough that if Trump were a normal citizen, he would be in prison for the rest of his fucking life.

    It isn't our fault you are ignoring reality. Hell, there are 12 people right now that are directly tied to Trump that have been charged with seditious conspiracy. One of them has already plead guilty to that fact that they were planning this with Trump and his administration.

    Then you have all the texts, the Green Bay Sweep plan made by Eastman, Meadows, Bannon, Guiliani and others. Trump using burner phones, Trump's own speech, literally all of it, is tied to him on January 6th.

  11. #13571
    The Lightbringer tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    3,208
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    They have ALL OF THE EVIDENCE NEEDED to charge Trump with seditious conspiracy.

    And ALL of the stuff that has been published, is enough that if Trump were a normal citizen, he would be in prison for the rest of his fucking life.
    We are pretty much down to simple contradiction.

    It isn't our fault you are ignoring reality. Hell, there are 12 people right now that are directly tied to Trump that have been charged with seditious conspiracy. One of them has already plead guilty to that fact that they were planning this with Trump and his administration.
    If you're going to go with Oath Keepers and "directly tied to Trump," I think I'm getting absolutely trolled here.

    Then you have all the texts, the Green Bay Sweep plan made by Eastman, Meadows, Bannon, Guiliani and others. Trump using burner phones, Trump's own speech, literally all of it, is tied to him on January 6th.
    You're playing through your evidence like the last sentence is 9/11 was an inside job, or now you know your wife is cheating on you. Actually, last time I heard it was some vax denier government conspiracy type. The Green Bay Sweep, drop four names in succession, Fauci's got burner phones, Fauci said this and that, and tada criminal conspiracy. You can't point to strings linking pins on a corkboard and say it amounts to a case that has a prayer of a conviction. Even if two thirds individual points show impeachable conduct, condemnable actions, and violations of oath of office (See: Impeachment). That's why I say Garland's DOJ hasn't done anything. He's waiting for further actual revelations from the Jan 6th committee, or its conclusion together with a report. Garland's prosecutors can't point at the corkboard and say the burner phones prove the green bay sweep conspiracy was known to Trump because of these texts, Bannon, Meadows, Guiliani Yahtzee. He can, and has, charged Bannon with contempt ... with actual evidence of noncompliance with subpoenas, and a legal theory against Bannon's defense. I'd suggest you analyze those differences, together with why the justice department didn't do a bam-o-seditious-conspiracy for everybody that entered the Capitol grounds.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  12. #13572
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    We are pretty much down to simple contradiction.

    If you're going to go with Oath Keepers and "directly tied to Trump," I think I'm getting absolutely trolled here.

    You're playing through your evidence like the last sentence is 9/11 was an inside job, or now you know your wife is cheating on you. Actually, last time I heard it was some vax denier government conspiracy type. The Green Bay Sweep, drop four names in succession, Fauci's got burner phones, Fauci said this and that, and tada criminal conspiracy. You can't point to strings linking pins on a corkboard and say it amounts to a case that has a prayer of a conviction. Even if two thirds individual points show impeachable conduct, condemnable actions, and violations of oath of office (See: Impeachment). That's why I say Garland's DOJ hasn't done anything. He's waiting for further actual revelations from the Jan 6th committee, or its conclusion together with a report. Garland's prosecutors can't point at the corkboard and say the burner phones prove the green bay sweep conspiracy was known to Trump because of these texts, Bannon, Meadows, Guiliani Yahtzee. He can, and has, charged Bannon with contempt ... with actual evidence of noncompliance with subpoenas, and a legal theory against Bannon's defense. I'd suggest you analyze those differences, together with why the justice department didn't do a bam-o-seditious-conspiracy for everybody that entered the Capitol grounds.
    They are directly tied to Trump, they were literally in his "war room" the weeks before the insurrection happened.

    The fact that you think it is nothing, just shows how fucking disingenuous you really fucking are. You are going to deny everything past the convictions, aren't you?

  13. #13573
    The Lightbringer tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    3,208
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    They are directly tied to Trump, they were literally in his "war room" the weeks before the insurrection happened.

    The fact that you think it is nothing, just shows how fucking disingenuous you really fucking are. You are going to deny everything past the convictions, aren't you?
    Garland doesn't go before a jury and say, "Members of the jury, they were literally with Trump weeks before the insurrection. They are tied to Trump. Directly tied to Trump. Direct. Ties. You must therefore find Trump guilty of seditious conspiracy. That's my evidence." You're acting like the standard is "if it doesn't make Trump look good, it must be a criminal offense provable in court."

    And repeating over and over that x, y, and z is "tied to Trump" will get you nowhere in court. Unless we're talking the court of public opinion, in which case you might get several retweets. Show me Innocent Until Proven Several People Are Directly Tied To You That Have Criminal Charges Against Them.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  14. #13574
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    Jokes about the VP doing nothing have been around for literally the entire existence of the office. John Adams told his wife, "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." FDR's first VP said the office "isn't worth a pitcher of warm piss," and his last VP (Harry Truman) called it "useful as a cow's fifth teat." When the Whigs asked Daniel Webster to run as Zachary Taylor's VP, he replied, "I do not propose to be buried until I am really dead and in my coffin."

    The job expanded somewhat after FDR to make sure that the VP was at least kept in the loop so as to be ready in the event they had to assume the presidency, and Dick Cheney acted far beyond what VP's typically do, but broadly speaking the VP's role, unless specifically tasked with something by the president, is to essentially be an advisor.
    "Being vice president is like being declawed, defanged, neutered, ball-gagged, and sealed in an abandoned coal mine under two miles of human shit" -Selina Meyer.

  15. #13575
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Technically, you can charge him with things that he walks away innocent, waste everybody's time, and spawn a buncha "broken justice system" articles (depending on who you ask, this is a win). Manhattan DA had that choice on the first leg of a fraud case. He could've brought a case with poor evidence and a low hope of getting a conviction, but decided to back off for now, causing a couple resistance types to resign. That grand jury goes kaput at the end of the month.
    Carrying that another 50 yards huh?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  16. #13576
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Garland doesn't go before a jury and say, "Members of the jury, they were literally with Trump weeks before the insurrection. They are tied to Trump. Directly tied to Trump. Direct. Ties. You must therefore find Trump guilty of seditious conspiracy. That's my evidence." You're acting like the standard is "if it doesn't make Trump look good, it must be a criminal offense provable in court."

    And repeating over and over that x, y, and z is "tied to Trump" will get you nowhere in court. Unless we're talking the court of public opinion, in which case you might get several retweets. Show me Innocent Until Proven Several People Are Directly Tied To You That Have Criminal Charges Against Them.
    Wrong. You literally are IGNORING all of the evidence before you, because you don't like it.

  17. #13577
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    81,973
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    Wrong. You literally are IGNORING all of the evidence before you, because you don't like it.
    Notably, once a seditious conspiracy is an established fact under the law;

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

    And convictions for said crime do exactly that, then acts by said conspiracy fall under this earlier law, for "rebellion or insurrection";

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

    Same "opposing the force of authority of the USA" language, y'see.

    And that earlier law includes the text "gives aid or comfort thereto". Meaning anyone who supported anyone who was conviction of seditious conspiracy is, themselves, guilty of insurrection against the USA. You applauded their actions, by posting positive support on Twitter? That counts. You sent them a donation? That counts. You tried to use your political clout to deflect legal action against them? That counts. And so on.

    This is a terribly easy standard to meet.


  18. #13578
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    26,852
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    Wrong. You literally are IGNORING all of the evidence before you, because you don't like it.
    He doesn't care if Trump did it or not.

    He only cares whether people can prove Trump did it or not, in a court of law. Anything beyond that, and he'll consider himself to have "won."


    It's like being a criminal. They don't care if they commit crimes or not, they only care if they get busted for them.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  19. #13579
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Notably, once a seditious conspiracy is an established fact under the law;

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

    And convictions for said crime do exactly that, then acts by said conspiracy fall under this earlier law, for "rebellion or insurrection";

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

    Same "opposing the force of authority of the USA" language, y'see.

    And that earlier law includes the text "gives aid or comfort thereto". Meaning anyone who supported anyone who was conviction of seditious conspiracy is, themselves, guilty of insurrection against the USA. You applauded their actions, by posting positive support on Twitter? That counts. You sent them a donation? That counts. You tried to use your political clout to deflect legal action against them? That counts. And so on.

    This is a terribly easy standard to meet.
    Yep, if you gave them a ride there, like Ginni Thomas did with sending some of them there on buses on that day.

  20. #13580
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And that earlier law includes the text "gives aid or comfort thereto". Meaning anyone who supported anyone who was conviction of seditious conspiracy is, themselves, guilty of insurrection against the USA. You applauded their actions, by posting positive support on Twitter? That counts. You sent them a donation? That counts.
    You're misreading the text, not in the sense that, by your definitions the sentence doesn't make sense, but because your basic definitions are wrong. The aid and comfort section isn't about domestic insurgence. They're specifically about aid and comfort to "subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government." (page 3 in this link). None of the speech is tantamount to treason, and the donations would only qualify if they were solicited explicitly to overthrow the gov't; the bussing donations aren't problematic, but the donations for body armor could be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •