I have no one blocked. I find even the most difficult of this board to be way more interesting than the general public, and most everyone, including you, I consider friends.

Uh what? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Louie Gohmert suggests street violence after lawsuit fails - Chicago Tribune

At what point are treason charges warranted?

I grant a lot a leeway to filing charges in court, but when you're starting to advocate violence in the streets then you probably should be arrested.

Why the rush to play the treason card on this kind of thing all the time? It's nowhere near treason.

I do agree that it is criminal. I'm not sure of the exact charge, I would think reckless endangerment at the very least and probably worse, but treason is a whole other animal.

Well I think calling for violence to overturn a lawful election is beyond "reckless endangerment"

Gohmert is basically asking people to violently overthrow the government. If that is not treason then what is?

Probably is sedition. Definition and some more info I found on it:
A revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority, usually in the form of Treason or Defamation against government.

“Sedition is the crime of revolting or inciting revolt against government. However, because of the broad protection of free speech under the First Amendment, prosecutions for sedition are rare. Nevertheless, sedition remains a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force. Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).
The crime of seditious conspiracy is committed when two or more persons in any state or U.S. territory conspire to levy war against the U.S. government. A person commits the crime of advocating the violent overthrow of the federal government when she willfully advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government by force, publishes material that advocates the overthrow of the government by force, or organizes persons to overthrow the government by force. A person found guilty of seditious conspiracy or advocating the overthrow of the government may be fined and sentenced to up to 20 years in prison. States also maintain laws that punish similar advocacy and conspiracy against the state government.“

Treason requires there to be a declared enemy of the United States. If you aren't taking sides against an entity Congress has declared war on, it's not treason.

Sedition is closer, but I don't think that would be a winnable case either. I definitely agree it's a serious crime, this is just about where to slot it.

Someone will have to react to his words to actually commit a crime, be it assault, murder, terrorism, etc. Otherwise, all it is is incitement, which is legal through the 1st Amendment.

Hawley is a lawyer with degrees from Standford and Yale Law. For him to make this statement is so dishonest it is sick. He knows that this law was passed three elections ago, and he knows that by law any challenge to it would have to come BEFORE the election. You can't wait till you lose election to then challenge a law like this. He is well aware, yet he is using peoples ignorance of how law works against. Even single one of these pricks should be disbarred.

.⁦@HawleyMO⁩ sends email to fellow Senate republicans tonight, responding to ⁦@SenToomey⁩ and defending his decision to challenge the Pa EC vote.

He says they should debate on the Senate floor, not through press release and email. pic.twitter.com/padJmCjV1n

— Leigh Ann Caldwell (@LACaldwellDC) January 3, 2021

We should not count enough votes so that Trump wins. It's never been about fraud.

Is it really as easy as having control of Congress and simply deciding not to certify election results to stay in power as long as you like? Everything I read says these challenges are unlikely to work because Dems control the house. Does that mean if Republicans controlled the house they could legally change the results of the election at this point?

Scary that this line is about to be crossed. The next time they're both controlled by one party we literally will be staring at a coup and I'm unsure how that plays out.

Thank God that the Democrats control the House because I could see an attempt to overturn the election having a chance at succeeding if the GOP controlled both houses.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Just...wow.

They may really have to drag this clown out of there.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...?itid=hp_alert

Imagine if he was a republican that all other republicans supported?

I was just reading this. It's just incredible to think that an elected official can brazenly do this. Like, you know, just go back and 'fix' the vote for me, would ya?

I would have loved it if the Sec State would have responded with, Mr president, what you are suggesting is election fraud and punishable blah blah blah.

You need to listen to the audio. He sounds like a 5-year-old who isn't getting his way.

The president trying to intimidate a state secretary of state into rigging the election, and doing so in a recorded conversation, isn't even the top news story on most news sites I'm pursuing this morning. It's just being normalized. It's just part of politics now.

I teach the Idaho Code to police officers sometimes, and they're always amused by this very old statute, that most states have a version of, that make it illegal to arrest state legislators on days when the legislature is in session when they are heading to work. It's to prevent the governor or other force in government with enough power to order the police to arrest and detain political opponents in the legislature on days of important votes. I don't know when in American history this was a legitimate concern, or if was a statute passed with paranoia, but it feels like we're in such a time again where that could at least be attempted.

It does all seem like a return to the Tammany Hall days

https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/statu...10744412139521


The this is the Washington Post article. Schumer should play the tape on the Senate floor.

We're at a point where all that stands between us and a dictatorship is a handful of Republicans in critical posts. There are plenty of GOPers that would gladly sacrifice democracy in order to maintain power.

United States Constitution has similar protections. In colonial days, the King would sometimes have legislators arrested and shipped off to Britain to stand trial if the legislature in question was getting too fractious. Idaho obviously wasn't around in colonial days, but the original protections were designed because in living memory that HAD been a problem, and most states have enacted similar statutes because the Constitutional protection applies to Congress, not to state legislatures.

Amazingly I think we’re back in the situation that whatever happens, the next two weeks or so will be seen as huge when looking back at the history of the US.

And assuming that democracy ultimately does prevail, Trump absolutely has to somehow be made accountable in the courts for his actions.

I'm skimmed a couple of law review articles about it, I think there's always law students who find these statutes and state constitutional provisions and want to explore the enforceability of them.

Our statute has never been used as far as I know, but it contains some qualifying language. I believe say, a DUI arrest would not be covered, and I'd be happy to dive into the whole thing and defend such an arrest challenged by that statute if it ever came to that.

I always find it funny when people think a thing like this is a big "gotcha" on Trump, when absolutely nothing is going to come of this unless it is the Georgia SOS facing problems, legal or otherwise.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

How do you have a democracy in a 2 party system if one side doesn't believe in it?

Another takeaway from this is that the constitution did not want to give people power and the founders sure wanted a king.

Not true. The founders wanted the presidency to be the weakest of the branches and didn't forsee the consolidation of power we've seen starting with Jackson. The original intent was to leave the executive somewhat weak and assumed the legislative branch would want it kept that way.

They tried to recruit Frederick the Great's brother to be our king. They wanted to call the President, "His Highness". They insured the vast majority of the population had no say in deciding our leaders and that a President could serve without term limits. I get the narrative they had to push, but they created an extraordinarily powerful position that could only be chosen by a handful of elite.

They gave our President not just control of the government, but the position of head of state. A position that controls execution and enforcement of laws and can make crimes legal at any time. They also have control of our military. Now maybe they were too dumb to expect someone might come along and abuse it, but that is a hell of a lot of power to give someone that you want to be the "weakest" branch.

When Raffensberger tells Trump that he had the FBI and GBI to look into allegations and they found nothing, Trump said "then they must be corrupt." When Raffensberger says the courts have not found any evidence to overturn, Trump said "I don't care about what the courts say." Law and Order my aunt Fanny.

Guilty as charged. Over the last month or so, whenever I talk with my mother about politics this is exactly the take that I have. This is politics nowadays. The frustration for me has been the pushback against any criticism of the behavior is more extensive than the the behavior itself.

Yep. It's DESPICABLE that the audio was released. THAT's the takeaway for the bad behavior in this sad episode.

At this point, it could have Trump murdering someone on it and the crime would be the release of the tape because Trump didn't know he was being recorded.

Btw if the reporting was right that last night's letter from all the living Defense Secretaries was Dick Cheney's idea then dang I actually have to give Dick Cheney credit for something.

Ew- that makes me feel all dirty

SI

Excerpts from Liz Cheney's memo to House GOP.

NEWS --> I've obtained the memo House GOP Conference Chair @Liz_Cheney sent to her colleagues re: Jan 6th electoral objections. She says proposed actions by some Republicans would set an "exceptionally dangerous precedent," calling the commission idea "even more problematic." pic.twitter.com/qy0cTySNqP

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) January 3, 2021

Of course immediately after the highlighted portion is a "both sides" accusation.

I always want the next day (today) to be the day that unusual heroes stand up and take the opportunity to be just that but they never do and the day passes by.

Trump was right about his 5th ave. comment.

Trump's go-to move is to demand that someone else assume all the risk so that he can reap all the rewards. He's hoping other people will throw the election and leave his hands clean so he can stay in office and claim he had nothing to do with it.

There will always be snakes in politics. I have no issue with that. What I always hope for is the people I care about who support Trump to wake up and realize how horribly wrong they were. My father in law actually has, but a lot more still drink the kool aid and will accept no logic argument.

Yup, and he will throw them under the bus the second he has to. It amazes me. Hawley isn't stupid. He has to know this will backfire spectacularly.

He's expecting to ride the Trump endorsement/vote for another 4-8 years. That's the calculus. Even Trump going to jail wouldn't hurt him because it'll just be spun as a vendetta and Trump'll be treated as a martyr. Short of Trump dropping dead and no one being able to energize his base as effectively, I think the all-in pro-Trumpers know exactly what they are doing and that it will benefit them.

I agree with this.

Because the election did not show a total repudiation of Trumpism, there are still going to be politicians riding on the Trump bandwagon for a while.

The timing of this doesn't seem coincidental at all. Nope.

NEW: The US Attorney in Atlanta is departing his post today, after previously indicating that he would not step down until Jan. 20 https://t.co/ZddLNbCYvQ

— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) January 4, 2021

What does that potentially mean?

I want a Raffensperger jersey.

Probably was asked to indict Raffensberger and said fuck this.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/politic...MM7EBIMDZNXTQ/

Wow.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Trump has always struck me as John Cusack in High Fidelity.

Nothing. The far left on Twitter will speculate it's some 8d chess move by principled democrats that will haunt Trump... then 6 hours will go by and we'll never hear about it again.