To Impeach Trump or?? Consequences for Inciting Insurrection.

These are important.

Another is that as it is today, Trump like all other past presidents gets access to the full top secret intel reports.

And, given that Trump has proven to be open about selling stuff (such as pardons), has proven ready to use his position to assault our very form of government, is tight with Putin, is closing in on being broke ...

... I'd say that is a serious national security risk.

 

I realize that posters here believe in Law and Order - why are you repeating what was told to you previous post ? followed up with unrelated gibberish.

"No" to what ? do you want to say something - We know you think the folks who broke into the capital were terrorists - for having occupied an important/symbolic Govt building - and doing damage - so why repeat this.

What is it --- NO NO NO .. is that the voice in your head ? Speak up man What are you saying No to - Was this a mistake - having some unwanted touching going on and did a Freudian typo ...

Tell us your troubles ... NO NO NO --- To what ? What are you saying No to ? - and perhaps more importantly - why.

You need to stop these rabbit hole into nowhere posts .. something containing more than one word <NO> addressing the post you are responding to -

It matters not what else these people might have been planning or did .. You set the bar for "Terrorism" at occupying the building and causing damage while Protesting.

You can Change your definition if you like - now that perhaps you are starting to see how Absurd the initial definition you gave was - how this was down the dark path to Authoritarianism ..

but - either way -- Please say something coherent ... Change your definition - keep the old one .. I don't care .. but say something other than "NO NO NO NO NO NO" por favor

 

What ? So what that it says nothing about protests getting out of hand ... What is your point. ?

 

The "no" was to your question regarding "authoritarians" and my subsequent comment that most posters here were in support of law and order. Those not believing in law and order were those taking part in breaking in to the Capitol and violating other related laws.

 

The reason was to shut down the electoral vote count. Trump explained all of that in his own speech.

 

??
The date was explicitly changed to correspond to the certification of the electoral college vote.

This is just more evidence that the crimes of Jan 6 were organized to be a deadly assault on our democracy - insurrection.

And, it was indeed deadly, with an officer killed by having his brains beat in. Also, there was another death, and I see no reason for the felony murder statute to care what side the victims were on - they were both deaths in the furtherance of their crime.

There should be NO charge against ANY of these terrorists that doesn't include felony murder.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/felony-murder-and-storming-capitol

 

There wasnt ANY doubt about what they were there for.

Trump sent them there to forecefully stop our democracy.

There is plenty of video showing that those carrying out the insurrection were sure of that. There is also plenty of evidence that they were going to carry out violent acts on our elected officials, including congressmen and the vice president.

In fact, those inside the Capitol stated loudly that they were there at the invitation of Trump.

 

Yup - "Law and Order" - keep repeating that to yourself - Authoritarians love "Law and Order" and blathering out meaningless platitudes.

The question we are addressing is whether or not you claiming that protesters occupying a Gov't building - and causing damage - constitutes terrorism

My claim - one which you have yet to address with anything other than diversion and repetition of premise - is that where you are setting the "Law and Order" bar - is Authoritarianism.

Your definition is way to broad and can cover any protest that gets out of hand - send in the storm-troopers against the terrorists .. make sure we have demonized them properly first so the public will not feel to bad when - "4 dead in Ohio"

Your reading straight out of the Authoritarian playbook - and have no idea of the consequences of what you suggest... no regard for essential liberty, limited Gov't power, the Rule of Law ... just keep repeating "Law and Order" over and over .. - the one stop solution to all your troubles.

 

No idea why you posted the above - as none addresses anything in my post .. and I can't make sense out of what you are trying to get across - other than you think the protest was terrorism - .. a post full of assumed premise fallacy - backed up with nothing .. and no discernable point you are addressing.

 

Ah...that's the definition...in law. You seem to be arguing that the people you invaded the Capitol building, were entitled to the invasion? The same basic definition of domestic terrorism is used in several places in U.S. Law, but the FBI definition is referenced in Title 18 United States Code 2331 (5) and with slight differences in wording in Title 6 United States Code 101 (1. Using the latter, it's defined as "an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and appears to be intended to coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." The invasion of the Capitol fits the first clause...it was dangerous to human life and potentially destructive of critical infrastructure [EdNote: People were killed and injured in critical infrastructure - namely the seat of government, the Capitol. Secondly, the building invasion and subsequent events inside violated violated U.S. criminal laws. Third, per the Trump speech (and others) it was an attempt to coerce the civilian population and to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."

So...it's easy to charge the people who actually invaded the building and violated criminal law as "domestic terrorists." Tying others (such as Trump, Guiliani, Brooks, Donald Junior would be more difficult because their speeches would have to show intent to commit domestic terrorism, via sedition. It would require confessions of the individuals or overwhelming circumstantial evidence, such as other witnesses, patterns of speech, etc. But it isn't impossible.

 

Why are you repeating this - all of the above applies to any protest group that causes damage to/ occupies a Gov't building - except the "Mass Destruction" - as there was no kidnapping or assassination.

So it comes down to how you define Mass Destruction -- You have defined "Mass Destruction" as Occupying a Gov't building and causing damage - I disagree with your perspective but - its your perspective - and you are welcome to it.

The problem with your perspective is that you set the bar so low - that any protest group that causes a ruckus involving a Gov't building fits your definition -- slide a bit down the slippery slope you have initiated - as always happens - and any civil disobedience will be treated on the same level as "Terrorism"

I get that you are a big fan of the heavy hand of the State -- big "Law and Order" fan - love singing platitudes thinking you know what they mean - or that they are real .. but this is a bridge way to far... you can only dig your hole deeper from here.

I said a few posts ago - change your position a bit - offered for you to move the goalposts -

Right now you are making McCarthy look mild ... and the hypocrisy of Blue's position in general is ripping with Orwellian Irony - given the sins of Blue during the Obama Admin .. Sins that Biden is also guilty of.

but I didn't even go there - as you can't seem to figure out what your position is - when confronted with the meaning of what you support... at which point - when faced with a mirror - can only twirl around crying NO NO NO.. followed by repeating premise -- back to the same vomit as if we have not already covered it .. desperate to avoid and deny the reality in the mirror.

 

Your numerous negatives seem to indicate some level of confusion.

So, I added some concrete.

It WAS domestic terrorism. It WAS insurrection. It WAS directed by Trump, as verified by both Trump's call to action and statements by the insurgents.. It did include a murder, and therefore all the insurgents (plus any who helped coordinate that insurrection) may be charged with felony murder. Giuliani could also be charged, as he explicitly called for violence when he addressed the Republian mob that carried out the insurrection.

There really aren't any grounds for disagreeing with the above.

I'm sure there are other aspects that could be discussed.

 

No clue what you are talking about -- what negatives ? Your last post was a bunch of stuff that had no bearing on the post you were responding to ...

When you jump into a conversation - you should at least figure out what that conversation is about....

 

Defending America against an insurgency attempting to defeat our democracy does not require being a "big law and order" anything.

All it takes is an interest in America and our form of governmnet.

 

You were typing long strings of "no", which usually indicates difficulties in communication. And, your comments have not been easy to figure out.

imho, starting over with some concrete seems to be in order.

 

I didn't say it did .. the conversation you jumped into was about terrorism - and if this Protest and subsequent riot meets that definition.
Using the term "Insurgency" is incorrect - as this was not an armed insurgency - a descriptive adjective you conveniently left out.

but regardless - the fellow gave the definition as occupying a Gov't building - and causing damage - you may agree or disagree with this definition .. but this is the definition I was responding to.

Under this definition - Any protest that occupies a Gov't building and causes some damage - a few get injured - as so often happens - is Terrorism.

At which point the Poster responded "NO NO NO" - protesting his own definition when showed to him/her in the mirror. hence the Michael Jackson Music video Man in the Mirror.

Your post does not confer having any clue what the post you were responding to was about --

But - since you are here .. if you wish to provide a different definition - and show how this action fits that definition. have at er ...

 

Actually, the bar is even lower...you missed the "or's" between "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation OR coercion; OR to affect the conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." Civil disobedience never suggested that one should not be subject to arrest and penalties for violating unjust laws. It was a methodology to focus attention on such laws in order to change them. Exactly what "unjust law" were the criminals protesting? The reality is that people are going to be arrested, prosecuted and tried. And, if found guilty they are going to pay the penalties.

 

I did not miss the or's - mentioned there was no assassinations or kidnapping - so does can't call it terrorism on that part of the definition...this leaves "Mass Destruction"

So OK ... you are claiming this action fits the definition of "Mass Destruction" - as I have told you 5 times now .

You further defined "Mass Destruction" as occupying and doing damage to a Gov't building ... and now you want to go further it seems .. claiming the bar is lower than this.

Alrighty then - How Low can you go since you passed Authoritarianism at your first definition of Terrorism - My Civil Disobedience comment was in relation to the slippery slope .. not what you said - but how someone else will use this precedent down the road ... something you seem completely oblivious to. -

You also seem to lack an understanding of Civil Disobedience - you realize that the this is intentional breaking of a Law - but regardless - it matters not as it is not part of the present - but who knows in the future with folks with your perspective who want to lower the bar further.

Trump is a lightweight Authoritarian compared to you ..

 

Jan 6 absolutely WAS an armed insurgency. That isn't in question.

I gave you the FBI definition of domestic terrorism pages back. And, there is no competing definition that would possibly consider Jan 6 as NOT being domestic terrorism.

There is NO jusification for thinking these two issues are in question. They are not. Jan 6 fulfilled all the requirements for being an armed insurgency. And, it fulfills the elements of being domestic terrorism by any federally accepted definition.

This is what I mean by noting that it's time to start over. There is no point to be made by trying to manufacture confusion of facts this basic.

 

reading comprehension is key ... you should try it ...

you're right, it doesn't say anything about protests getting out of hand ... I didn't post the definition for you to look for something that is not there ...

you can't reason with the obtuse ...

 

You're still attempting to get away with fudging the definition.

It absolutely WAS domestic terrorism by the definition you are trying to dodge by considering only parts of the definition.

Trump attempted to overthrow this election in order to gain power. THAT would be a coup. And, it would come only by defeating our democracy. These insurgents came with guns and pipe bombs, and stated that they were intent on killing the VP. and making Trump president. They killed an officer who was defending the Capitol.

You don't seem to have ANY Idea of how serious this assault on our form of ggovernment actually was.

 

Hahaha. The elements of the law that involve domestic terrorism is an act that involves 1) danger to human life OR potentially destructive of critical infrastructure OR key resources and 2) is a violation of criminal law of either the U.S. OR any part thereof and 3) intended to intimidate OR coerce a civilian population to 4) influence the policy of a government OR to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

So...four elements to constitute domestic terrorism: 1) danger to human life [people died in the assault on the Capitol] or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure [the Capitol itself, but no other reason is necessary due to the threat to human life]. 2) a violation of criminal law [ wide range of criminal laws violated from attacking Capitol Police outside of the Capitol and knocking down barriers, to breaking and entering, murder, etc. no other state law violation is needed]. 3) intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population by storming the nation's Capitol and 4) to influence the policy of of a government [to disrupt the legislative branch from carrying on their lawful business, which fulfills this requirement for this last element...and doesn't require the alternative, mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. IOW, all elements are clearly fulfilled. Civil disobedience accepts punishment for peacefully violating a law felt to be unjust. It doesn't negate "the rule of law" which is the foundation of a democratic republic such as ours. It is not a replacement for the rule of law and accepts that as the outgrowth of the "social contract." It breaks the law solely as a method for CHANGING the law, not doing away with the rule of law.

 

Arnold did have experience in American Government as a Governor of California. I wouldn't know how he'd do as President. I don't think I'd want him as President.

 

As you know, we'd have to change the Constitution to allow him to run. Don't know how I'd like him as President? I remember him as a liberal Republican...unlike most of his film personas.

 

I agree there were some folks with guns - but there was no armed insurgency - don't recall too many shots fired by these armed folks among the myriad of Protesters who were not armed.

The folks that were armed - should be prosecuted... the rest I would not consider "Terrorists" - nor is Trump responsible for these few renegades - amongst the rioters ..

So there you have it