The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
The reason in Georgia is he was not speaking in an official capacity. It was a meeting of lawyers and parties.
Click to expand...

Nope: Mark "some of my relatives are black" Meadows was on the line too

BobTheCoward said:
You can absolutely ask that. These mid terms, if I see the guy out in Atlanta, I can absolutely walk up and say stop counting once there is enough votes for so-and-so.
Click to expand...

But you cannot do that if you're a candidate and you threaten him with a criminal investigation if he does not comply.

And in any case, Presidential elections are run and controlled by the individual states - Federal parties such as the President, Presidential advisors, Senators and White House lawyers have no jurisdiction and no business communicating with State Election board staff or their superiors.
 
Paul2 said:
Part of this thread is discussing whether trump's actions (or lack thereof) on Jan. 6 broke some law. I think the Georgia call is pretty cut and dry, but that wasn't on Jan. 6, although it is part of Trump's entire effort, which includes Jan. 6.
Click to expand...

As an analogy, in the weeks before, Trump loaded a gun and pointed it at the Capitol. On Jan 6, all he did was pull the trigger. It isn't against the law to pull a trigger, especially if you decidedly ignore the context of whether the gun was loaded or where it was aimed. Heck, one could argue that pulling triggers are Constitutionally protected, minus the context where it isn't.

So, the laws Trump broke (or even the absolutely free speech he made) in the lead up to Jan 6 absolutely should, and does, inform us about whether his actions (or lack thereof) on Jan 6 broke some law. They were not made in a vacuum.
 
smartcooky said:
And in any case, Presidential elections are run and controlled by the individual states - Federal parties such as the President, Presidential advisors, Senators and White House lawyers have no jurisdiction and no business communicating with State Election board staff or their superiors.
Click to expand...

They absolutely have business communicating with the staff....we all do as citizens.

But also, candidates do talk to the people involved in their elections.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Trump was the president of the United States. As such, ANY statements he make should be viewed in a different context than if just a random guy who walks up to an election official and says "stop counting".

In fact, Trump actually threatened Raffensperger with a "criminal investigation" if he did not comply. The fact that Trump was president suggests that Raffensperger should have taken the threat seriously.
Click to expand...
I'm not finding the criminal investigation in the transcript.
Click to expand...
From: The Guardian
“You know what they did and you’re not reporting it,” Trump said. “You know, that’s a criminal offence. And you know, you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan [Germany], your lawyer. That’s a big risk.”

Using phrases like 'Criminal offence' and 'big risk to you'. Not really sure how you can consider that as anything BUT a threat of criminal investigation.
 
Segnosaur said:
From: The Guardian
“You know what they did and you’re not reporting it,” Trump said. “You know, that’s a criminal offence. And you know, you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan [Germany], your lawyer. That’s a big risk.”

Using phrases like 'Criminal offence' and 'big risk to you'. Not really sure how you can consider that as anything BUT a threat of criminal investigation.
Click to expand...

Criminal investigation was in quotes.
 
BobTheCoward said:
From: The Guardian
“You know what they did and you’re not reporting it,” Trump said. “You know, that’s a criminal offence. And you know, you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan [Germany], your lawyer. That’s a big risk.”

Using phrases like 'Criminal offence' and 'big risk to you'. Not really sure how you can consider that as anything BUT a threat of criminal investigation.
Click to expand...
Criminal investigation was in quotes.
Click to expand...
Yes. People regularly put phrases in quotes when they are paraphrasing, or using synonyms, or similar literary tools. It does not always mean that it is exact quotable text. You have been speaking english how long? How have you never come across that before?

So are we in agreement now? Trump threatened someone to overturn the election, and he did so under his presumed authority as president.
 
Segnosaur said:
Yes. People regularly put phrases in quotes when they are paraphrasing, or using synonyms, or similar literary tools. It does not always mean that it is exact quotable text. You have been speaking english how long? How have you never come across that before?

So are we in agreement now? Trump threatened someone to overturn the election, and he did so under his presumed authority as president.
Click to expand...

nope....he did not threaten and didn't do it under any presumed authority.
 
tyr_13 said:
Lying about the election, lying to the crowd about the administration of the election and how it could change, and then failing to act when he had a duty to, could all arguably be 'corruptly obstructing' through the plain reading of the statute, but I'm not comprehensively familiar with the case law that could impact the legal meaning.
Click to expand...
IANAL, most surely, but it seems to me that lying is doing something, whereas failing to act is not doing something, and the statue doesn't include a provision about not doing something, it only says that when you do X, Y, and Z - as actual actions, and not failures to act - you are violating the law.
 
smartcooky said:
"Actus Reus as omission" can and does often apply to criminal proceedings. A failure to act is when a person or party has a duty to perform a certain act but does not end up doing so. Failure to act under those circumstances can make a person criminally liable for whatever happens due to their failure to act.

Trump was implored by his advisors and by his own sons and daughter to make an announcement to get those insurrectionists to leave the Capitol... he failed to do so for over three and a half hours (and when he finally did so, it was too little and too late... and pretty weak sauce anyway.
Click to expand...
IANAL, so I defer to those who know more.
 
Upchurch said:
As an analogy, in the weeks before, Trump loaded a gun and pointed it at the Capitol. On Jan 6, all he did was pull the trigger. It isn't against the law to pull a trigger, especially if you decidedly ignore the context of whether the gun was loaded or where it was aimed. Heck, one could argue that pulling triggers are Constitutionally protected, minus the context where it isn't.

So, the laws Trump broke (or even the absolutely free speech he made) in the lead up to Jan 6 absolutely should, and does, inform us about whether his actions (or lack thereof) on Jan 6 broke some law. They were not made in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
I think you are agreeing with me, as I agree with you. Just to be clear.
 
Upchurch said:
As an analogy, in the weeks before, Trump loaded a gun and pointed it at the Capitol. On Jan 6, all he did was pull the trigger. It isn't against the law to pull a trigger, especially if you decidedly ignore the context of whether the gun was loaded or where it was aimed. Heck, one could argue that pulling triggers are Constitutionally protected, minus the context where it isn't.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about Trump, or Alec Baldwin playing Trump?
 
Last edited:
Mike! said:
Are we talking about Trump, or Alec Baldwin playing Trump?
Click to expand...

I would hope that nobody would hand either one a podium or a gun, respectively, ever again.

I suspect Alec Baldwin won't be looking to be put in that position anytime soon. If only the same could be said for Trump.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
IANAL, most surely, but it seems to me that lying is doing something, whereas failing to act is not doing something, and the statue doesn't include a provision about not doing something, it only says that when you do X, Y, and Z - as actual actions, and not failures to act - you are violating the law.
Click to expand...

This gets down to that false axiom that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What makes it false is is that often one would naturally expect their to be evidence.

Trump's failure to do anything for three hours combined with the reality he watched the rioting on TV from the beginning to the end. No calls to the DC or Capitol police or the Virginia or Maryland National Guard. No actions whatsoever to stop it. No tweets begging his supporters to go home. Nothing demonstrated an intent to stop it. In fact, reports are he watched the riots gleefully saying "that they were fighting for him." He didn't condemn the rioters. He said "we love you."

Trump set it up for there to be riots. He organized the rally and called it "stop the steal" promoting the idea that something is being stolen for the attendees. He made it so the righteous action was for them to fight for the country. To stop the steal. There was violence almost immediately. Both Trump's actions and inactions prove Trump's intent.

Anyone stating that the evidence of Trump's intent was not an insurrection is lying to us and lying to themselves. They are hanging their own integrity on pettifogging sophistry.

My question to Warp and Thermal and Prestige is do you think it is right that Trump should get away with this? That he is and should be above any accountability?
 
Paul2 said:
Part of this thread is discussing whether trump's actions (or lack thereof) on Jan. 6 broke some law. I think the Georgia call is pretty cut and dry, but that wasn't on Jan. 6, although it is part of Trump's entire effort, which includes Jan. 6.
Click to expand...

If you parse everything out finely enough you can find an excuse to ignore the obvious. By why are you bothering?

Trump incited a seditious riot on Jan 6. He also derelicted his sworn duty to protect and defend the constitution of the United States by not responding to that riot with his official powers or his bully pulpit. This was done to further his own seditious plot to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, in which he committed several other crimes including conspiring with foreign powers and coercing election officials.

All of this is obvious, level 1, fact. It's just what happened. The only interesting question in all of this, is why so many people are pettifogging the issue, and why he hasn't been held accountable for any of it.
 
digger said:
If you parse everything out finely enough you can find an excuse to ignore the obvious. By why are you bothering?

Trump incited a seditious riot on Jan 6. He also derelicted his sworn duty to protect and defend the constitution of the United States by not responding to that riot with his official powers or his bully pulpit. This was done to further his own seditious plot to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, in which he committed several other crimes including conspiring with foreign powers and coercing election officials.

All of this is obvious, level 1, fact. It's just what happened. The only interesting question in all of this, is why so many people are pettifogging the issue, and why he hasn't been held accountable for any of it.
Click to expand...

Almost none of that are facts.
 
acbytesla said:
My question to Warp and Thermal and Prestige is do you think it is right that Trump should get away with this? That he is and should be above any accountability?
Click to expand...
How much dissembling do you need to hear to understand their answer is "yes?"
 
Beelzebuddy said:
How much dissembling do you need to hear to understand their answer is "yes?"
Click to expand...

I get what Trump apologists do.

I just have to wonder if they have truly thought about it? Is Trump himself worthwhile to abandon some very important principles that make the country a better place? Do they really think the country is better off with the toilet tweeter? That the rule of law shouldn't apply to our leaders? That POTUS should be allowed to attempt a coup de etat and suffer no consequences?

Do they think Trump should be made King? That elections don't matter anymore?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom