blungld said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

It is pretty clear from the charges that a couple thousand protestors got inside the building without any plan whatsoever. But finally we have indictments against 11 nut jobs, which does not make a coup or even sedition, but does make a conspiracy change.

---

You're typically both a smart and a stand up guy. What's with this parsing of words and excuse making? You were completely wrong and this was obvious from the start. This was an organized plan (no matter how crazy or ineffective) pulled together in a panic by Trump and his inner circle and the nut jobs at the capital were one arm of a multi-prong attempt to overturn an election and stay in power. That's a coup. It doesn't matter that it didn't work or that the foot soldiers were dumb, manipulated, or didn't know the entire scheme (neither do the tank drivers in a military coup), but the desired outcome and violation of office and Constitution are crystal clear.

Sometimes you just admit you were wrong.

---

You misunderstand what I said.

It is interesting after a long thread on the difference between law and politics, I have to once again go through the misuse of legal language and drawing bad conclusions. Dajo started the whole conversation in another thread by asserting all the demonstrators overrunning the capital building as committed a rebellion and a coup led by Trump to overthrow the government. Tom pipped in with his usual grandiose comments of armed insurrection to take over the federal government, and then made up some stuff about the conduct of certain individuals. The language was over the top. The goal posts got moved by Dajo when I pointed out the charges again the demonstrators were not being charged for what is a coup or rebellion, which is the crime of treason. Dajo then suggested to wait, that would be coming, and maybe he meant those terms to mean something else. I'm still waiting of the Justice Department to act, but in any event I responded with my Onion version of events in the OP here.

In an impressive display of investigative work, the Feds cobbled a case against 11 guys who in a variety of manners and means, including: organizing into teams that were prepared and willing to use force and to transport firearms and ammunition into Washington, D.C.; recruiting members to participate in the conspiracy; organizing trainings to teach and learn paramilitary combat tactics; bringing and contributing paramilitary gear, weapons, and supplies including knives, camouflaged combat uniforms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, eye protection, and radio equipment to the Capitol grounds. The 11 were not charged with treason, which by statue is actions to overthrow the government, nor sedition, which is inciting rebellion against established authority with words or actions or to stop the function of government, such as to stop the execution of law. They were instead charged with conspiracy, and in this case seditious conspiracy to delay the execution of the law of the United States; to wit, "the certification of the electoral college vote and to prevent members of Congress from discharging their duties" (four were also found guilty of conspiring to obstruct the certification process).

I'm not sure why I have to play law professor, but the conspiracy and obstruction convictions of these 11 guys, have nothing to do with a take over of the government or other things Dajo and Tom were saying. There never was an allegation made by the Feds that by storming the Capital, the peace keepers were trying to overthrow the government. Nor was there any allegation their conduct is tied to Trump or anyone in the government. But to take this a step further, they were convicted of conspiracy and not sedition. Why not? The distinction is that while a conspiracy occurs when two or more people agree to commit an illegal act and take some step toward its completion, the criminal result did not occur. Let me repeat that for emphasis, the criminal act did not occur. Thus, they didn't even effect sedition, no less treason. You call this parsing of words or excuse making, I call this you not understanding the legal meaning of what is being said.

So what, you want to infer that somehow Trump led what these 11 guys did? Well the Justice Department still has produced no evidence of that nor did it allege that. You want to say that four guys armed with stun guns were going to take over the country? The Justice Department didn't go there either. You suggest that there was an "an organized plan (no matter how crazy or ineffective) pulled together in a panic by Trump and his inner circle and the nut jobs at the capital were one arm of a multi-prong attempt to overturn an election and stay in power". Let's start off with you don't want to use what is legally a coup and use your own definition. Second, suggesting Trump and cadre did anything organized is humorous. Third, there is absolutely no evidence and no assertion by the Justice Department that whatever Trump was doing, he coordinated with those who overran the capital. Fourth, there has been no assertion by the Justice Department several years later that anyone in the group that stormed the Capital Building was involved with Trump and his inner circle in planning to overturn the election. You are a smart guy, but that is no reason for me to accept your blanket unsubstantiated theories about some vast conspiracy that a group of misfits that overran the capital building were conspiring with Trump to overthrow the government. I'm still waiting for some actual evidence. To return to that thread on the difference between law and politics, it was asserted that in "bringing a case to court requires evidence. Evidence points to the truth of events independent of opinion" What I have is your opinion as a partisan. What I don't have is anyone who who involved in the lengthy investigation or the prosecution of several hundred people over several years saying what you are alleging. I'm still waiting.


In Tom's case he points to some other conduct of Trump in Georgia to try and conflate that Justice Department still has not asserted Trump did conspire with the guys that took over capital building, or that taking over the building was armed insurrection to take over the government. Since the thread was only about the take over of the capital building, I have to ask are you pulling a Dajo and moving on to conduct outside the original OP which dealt with an "armed insurrection to take over the government"?

Whether the effort by Trump to press his claims about the election being rigged, the litany of his absurd claims or pressuring election officials rises to a criminal level where he is convicted of a crime remains to be seen. Sounds like he ay have crossed a line in Georgia. I doubt very much any prosecutor will try to accuse him of treason. If pressuring or trying to influence election officials is a coup, then everyone at a senior level involved in the Bush/Gore election aftermath was involved in a coup.

My suggestion is you go back and read the OP of this thread, and look at my comment above on conspiracy and hopefully you can connect the dots to what I was and was not saying.

Goldener Bar said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Rhodes was found guilty criminally of seditious conspiracy UNANIMOUSLY by 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

---

In Communist regimes, everyone is guilty of seditious conspiracy against the government.

Stewart Rhodes NEVER went inside the US Capitol. He never instructed anyone to go inside the US Capitol. And he was unarmed as were all of his associates that day. He didn't commit any violence. The Oath Keepers were in DC to offer security for the several rallies planned on January 5th and 6th that were approved. Conservatives are forced to obtain permits when they hold their protests and rallies. Democrats can riot whenever they want.

Stewart and the Oath Keepers are just collateral damage.

---

Apparently, 12 jurors disagree with you.

---

BREAKING: GOP Rep. @Jim_Jordan sends letter to FBI demanding J6 pipe bomber update

Get this - the FBI *knows the license plate of the suspect’s car* but no arrests?!

Former FBI Asst Dir: “it just doesn’t add up…there’s just too much to work with to not know who this guy is” pic.twitter.com/XaeCz7bUmj

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) May 24, 2023

1. Ray Epps
2. DNC/RNC Pipe Bomber
3. Tens of thousands of hours of unreleased video footage

---

Why is Gym Jordan helping the Russia hoax coverup and allowing the Durham session to be secret?

---

It's a redo of the Hillary-Benghazi chapter in his biography.
It worked to give video clips for outlets to shape narratives, doubt in voter's minds.
Propaganda is not too hard.

---

No, Tom. According to beafarce and movielover, the Durham report blew the cover off the Russia hoax and fully exposed the Deep State. I want to hear from them why Gym Jordan is allowing this coverup.

---

The Russia hoax had its cover mostly blown off by the Mueller Report. Think of that as one nail holding up the obituary of Russiagate on the wall and everything since as more nails securing it more to the wall.

---

That Russia was helping Trump has been established. That Trump's people were having meetings with the Russians has been established. That Trumps campaign manager had a long history working for pro Russian elements and was giving campaign info to the Russians has been established.

Yeah, I have a problem with all that.

dajo9 said:

---

Goldener Bar said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Rhodes was found guilty criminally of seditious conspiracy UNANIMOUSLY by 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

---

In Communist regimes, everyone is guilty of seditious conspiracy against the government.

Stewart Rhodes NEVER went inside the US Capitol. He never instructed anyone to go inside the US Capitol. And he was unarmed as were all of his associates that day. He didn't commit any violence. The Oath Keepers were in DC to offer security for the several rallies planned on January 5th and 6th that were approved. Conservatives are forced to obtain permits when they hold their protests and rallies. Democrats can riot whenever they want.

Stewart and the Oath Keepers are just collateral damage.

---

Apparently, 12 jurors disagree with you.

---

BREAKING: GOP Rep. @Jim_Jordan sends letter to FBI demanding J6 pipe bomber update

Get this - the FBI *knows the license plate of the suspect’s car* but no arrests?!

Former FBI Asst Dir: “it just doesn’t add up…there’s just too much to work with to not know who this guy is” pic.twitter.com/XaeCz7bUmj

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) May 24, 2023

1. Ray Epps
2. DNC/RNC Pipe Bomber
3. Tens of thousands of hours of unreleased video footage

---

Why is Gym Jordan helping the Russia hoax coverup and allowing the Durham session to be secret?

---

It's a redo of the Hillary-Benghazi chapter in his biography.
It worked to give video clips for outlets to shape narratives, doubt in voter's minds.
Propaganda is not too hard.

---

No, Tom. According to beafarce and movielover, the Durham report blew the cover off the Russia hoax and fully exposed the Deep State. I want to hear from them why Gym Jordan is allowing this coverup.

---

The Russia hoax had its cover mostly blown off by the Mueller Report. Think of that as one nail holding up the obituary of Russiagate on the wall and everything since as more nails securing it more to the wall.

---

That Russia was helping Trump has been established. That Trump's people were having meetings with the Russians has been established. That Trumps campaign manager had a long history working for pro Russian elements and was giving campaign info to the Russians has been established.

Yeah, I have a problem with all that.

---

I see this thread is evolving.

To be legal again, Durham found that the FBI did not act with malice against Trump. His investigation identified several errors made by the FBI and that the FBI has made changes to the way it analyzes cases so that the same errors will not happen again, but overall concluded there was no "political bias" at the bureau. The current AG personally reviewed his report, approved his report without changes and ordered it published. I'm at a loss why people think Durham's Report overrides the Mueller Report finding the Russians interfered with the US election, somehow shows there is a deep state, or exonerated or accused anyone. Seems it was pretty narrow in scope.