Cont: Trump's Coup - Part 3

[Upchurch]

Eta: and damn straight they don't work on my timetable. Thermal gets **** done without a year to shuffle paper in circles.

That's what I've been saying. You jumped to conclusions while things were still happening. That's not a good thing.

 

[johnny karate]

Seditious conspiracy to delay/prevent the certification is better than nothing, I suppose. An interesting addendum is that they are charged with continuing to "plot to oppose by force the lawful transfer of power after Jan 6".

Eta: and damn straight they don't work on my timetable. Thermal gets **** done without a year to shuffle paper in circles.

"I was wrong" would have been more direct and to the point.

 

[Thermal]

That's what I've been saying. You jumped to conclusions while things were still happening. That's not a good thing.

And what you've been saying is wrong. I came to preliminary conclusions about the J6ers based on what I saw, while remaining open to new evidence. I have yet to see evidence of a credible coup attempt, with however many qualifiers we are up to. They looked like a bunch of yahoos that didn't know what they were doing. That's what I'm still seeing.

It seems that after a year, a dozen or so are finally up on conspiracy to interfere with the certification. Well, duh. One of the few things we have been able to agree on is that they were trying to interfere. My argument has been that the kind of interference wasn't actually a coup. I believe you know this by now.

You can get all excited about seeing the word "sedition" tied up in the charges. I am too; it shows the DOJ is taking this seriously and not sweeping it under the rug because it is awkward, as has been suggested ITT. Still not what I would call a coup, and certainly not a credible threat, per the Kline Institute's guidelines.

Sedition, btw, was one of the first things I said that Trump should have been charged with, along with inciting imminent lawless action. That still doesn't mean a coup.

 

[dirtywick]

LOL

 

[johnny karate]

And what you've been saying is wrong. I came to preliminary conclusions about the J6ers based on what I saw, while remaining open to new evidence. I have yet to see evidence of a credible coup attempt, with however many qualifiers we are up to. They looked like a bunch of yahoos that didn't know what they were doing. That's what I'm still seeing.

It seems that after a year, a dozen or so are finally up on conspiracy to interfere with the certification. Well, duh. One of the few things we have been able to agree on is that they were trying to interfere. My argument has been that the kind of interference wasn't actually a coup. I believe you know this by now.

You can get all excited about seeing the word "sedition" tied up in the charges. I am too; it shows the DOJ is taking this seriously and not sweeping it under the rug because it is awkward, as has been suggested ITT. Still not what I would call a coup, and certainly not a credible threat, per the Kline Institute's guidelines.

Sedition, btw, was one of the first things I said that Trump should have been charged with, along with inciting imminent lawless action. That still doesn't mean a coup.

A violent insurrection is "certainly not a credible threat", but tearing down a statue of Nathan Bedford puts us on a slippery slope into social anarchy.

Yeah, that tracks.

 

[Upchurch]

And what you've been saying is wrong. I came to preliminary conclusions about the J6ers based on what I saw, while remaining open to new evidence. I have yet to see evidence of a credible coup attempt, with however many qualifiers we are up to. They looked like a bunch of yahoos that didn't know what they were doing. That's what I'm still seeing.

You are so full of it.

 

[Stacyhs]

And what you've been saying is wrong. I came to preliminary conclusions about the J6ers based on what I saw, while remaining open to new evidence. I have yet to see evidence of a credible coup attempt, with however many qualifiers we are up to. They looked like a bunch of yahoos that didn't know what they were doing. That's what I'm still seeing.
It seems that after a year, a dozen or so are finally up on conspiracy to interfere with the certification. Well, duh. One of the few things we have been able to agree on is that they were trying to interfere. My argument has been that the kind of interference wasn't actually a coup. I believe you know this by now.

You can get all excited about seeing the word "sedition" tied up in the charges. I am too; it shows the DOJ is taking this seriously and not sweeping it under the rug because it is awkward, as has been suggested ITT. Still not what I would call a coup, and certainly not a credible threat, per the Kline Institute's guidelines.

Sedition, btw, was one of the first things I said that Trump should have been charged with, along with inciting imminent lawless action. That still doesn't mean a coup.

And what you have been saying is wrong, as what the DOJ has seen is quite different from what you see.

It is important to consider that federal law refers to “seditious conspiracy” as opposed to just “sedition.” There is the added burden of proof that an individual must actively be conspiring and taking steps toward a violent action against the government, not just making comments that seem to merely reflect that desire. This is to ensure that First Amendment activity is protected under the Constitution, and only actions that overtly demonstrate individuals’ plans to take dangerous steps toward overthrowing the United States’ constitutional government are charged.

Quote:
But there is a reason that many are confident that individuals involved in the riot at the Capitol will be charged on seditious conspiracy, and potentially even insurrection. The violent threats leading up to January 6, the actions taken at the Capitol, and the continued incitement of attacks on state and federal governments demonstrate a persistent and determined assault on U.S. democracy. The charges are serious and unprecedented, but so too are the violent actions that took place.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/unders...n-and-sedition

 

[Thermal]

And what you have been saying is wrong, as what the DOJ has seen is quite different from what you see.



https://www.csis.org/analysis/unders...n-and-sedition

This is the maddening part of this argument. The source you cite is on exactly the same page as I am. Actually, your cite links to the main page, so I took a gamble at what you were referring to. From the article "Understanding Insurrection and Sedition":

Generally, sedition is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government. Insurrection includes the actual acts of violence and rebellion.

This is what I have been saying since the actual J6. They should be charged with sedition (more properly, seditious conspiracy) and insurrection. But not for an attempted/incompetent/couldn't get anyone on board coup; simply for the violent interfering with our electoral process. A coup is one type of interference, with one objective. Disruption of the process is a different kind.

Please, without scanning my post for a gotcha to argue against, do you understand the point I have been making for a year now? I said during the actual Dildo Storm that the outgoing President should be charged with sedition and inciting imminent lawless action, and that the mad dogs be charged with insurrection (the actual violent acts, per your cited definition). But it was not an actual coup attempt. It was a different and unprecedented kind of insurrection.

 

[johnny karate]

This is the maddening part of this argument. The source you cite is on exactly the same page as I am. Actually, your cite links to the main page, so I took a gamble at what you were referring to. From the article "Understanding Insurrection and Sedition":

This is what I have been saying since the actual J6. They should be charged with sedition (more properly, seditious conspiracy) and insurrection. But not for an attempted/incompetent/couldn't get anyone on board coup; simply for the violent interfering with our electoral process. A coup is one type of interference, with one objective. Disruption of the process is a different kind.

Please, without scanning my post for a gotcha to argue against, do you understand the point I have been making for a year now? I said during the actual Dildo Storm that the outgoing President should be charged with sedition and inciting imminent lawless action, and that the mad dogs be charged with insurrection (the actual violent acts, per your cited definition). But it was not an actual coup attempt. It was a different and unprecedented kind of insurrection.

You've repeatedly cited the lack of sedition charges as evidence that January 6th doesn't qualify as a coup.

And now that we have sedition charges, it still doesn't qualify because... reasons.

 

[Thermal]

You've repeatedly cited the lack of sedition charges as evidence that January 6th doesn't qualify as a coup.

And now that we have sedition charges, it still doesn't qualify because... reasons.

Yes. It couldn't have been regarded as a coup by the government without sedition charges.

That doesn't mean that sedition charges apply only to a coup, dummy.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes. It couldn't have been regarded as a coup by the government without sedition charges.

That doesn't mean that sedition charges apply only to a coup, you devilishly handsome fellow.

You're the one who specifically cited sedition charges as qualifier for a coup. You repeatedly used that as a cudgel to prove January 6th wasn't a coup.

And now that we have actual sedition charges, you apparently just want to pretend that never happened.

 

[Paul2]

This is the maddening part of this argument. The source you cite is on exactly the same page as I am. Actually, your cite links to the main page, so I took a gamble at what you were referring to. From the article "Understanding Insurrection and Sedition":



This is what I have been saying since the actual J6. They should be charged with sedition (more properly, seditious conspiracy) and insurrection. But not for an attempted/incompetent/couldn't get anyone on board coup; simply for the violent interfering with our electoral process. A coup is one type of interference, with one objective. Disruption of the process is a different kind.

Please, without scanning my post for a gotcha to argue against, do you understand the point I have been making for a year now? I said during the actual Dildo Storm that the outgoing President should be charged with sedition and inciting imminent lawless action, and that the mad dogs be charged with insurrection (the actual violent acts, per your cited definition). But it was not an actual coup attempt. It was a different and unprecedented kind of insurrection.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for an attempted coup?

ETA: Bullet points only, please. We can get into discussion and justification soon enough.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for an attempted coup?

ETA: Bullet points only, please. We can get into discussion and justification soon enough.

It appears that there is only one condition that counts.....


success.


Anything that didn't work doesn't count.

 

[shemp]

Yes. It couldn't have been regarded as a coup by the government without sedition charges.

That doesn't mean that sedition charges apply only to a coup, dummy.

 

[Thermal]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/XZg6wTV.jpg[/qimg]

Et tu, shempus?

You guys are seriously claiming not to understand that

A. A coup attempt incorporates sedition by necessity
B. Sedition is not limited to a coup attempt

That's really where we are at?

 

[Thermal]

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for an attempted coup?

ETA: Bullet points only, please. We can get into discussion and justification soon enough.

Nothing different than I've been saying all year, and I really don't see the joy in a further reset and repeat

 

[Paul2]

Nothing different than I've been saying all year, and I really don't see the joy in a further reset and repeat

I'm willing to look at your bullet list - which, IIRC, you've never done on this topic - and fairly consider them. Can you not be troubled to even list a few of the necessary and sufficient conditions for an attempted coup?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If I understand thermal, he's saying that the sedition of the Oathkeepers was never going to be enough for a Coup, hence it wasn't even an attempt.
Of course, he ignores the next step, which according to multiple sources was for Trump to declare a State of Emergency to prevent certification.
For that, the Oathkeepers were a vital part of the conspiracy.

 

[varwoche]

... Still not what I would call a coup, and certainly not a credible threat, per the Kline Institute's guidelines.

I like to think you're mis-remembering, and not foisting a blatant falsehood. Here's the Cline Center’s conclusion, which I called to your attention in the prior thread.

Using Cline Center definitions, the storming of the US Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 was an attempted coup d’état. At the time of this writing, the Cline Center’s Coup D’état Project classifies the type of attempt as a dissident coup.​

You overlaid your concept of what constitutes a credible threat in this gross distortion of Clines's findings.

 

[Venom]

I like to think you're mis-remembering, and not foisting a blatant falsehood. Here's the Cline Center’s conclusion, which I called to your attention in the prior thread.

Using Cline Center definitions, the storming of the US Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 was an attempted coup d’état. At the time of this writing, the Cline Center’s Coup D’état Project classifies the type of attempt as a dissident coup.​

You overlaid your concept of what constitutes a credible threat in this gross distortion of Clines's findings.

Ah there it is I was trying to find this post.