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."
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.
"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."
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."
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.
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.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.
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.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.
"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."
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."
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.
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
Words to live by.
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.