Jan. 6th commission

Birdjaguar

Hanafubuki
Super Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
Messages
50,406
Location
Albuquerque, NM

TheMeInTeam

If A implies B...
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
27,658
oh look, what a surprise. fbi had 8 people in proud boys months before 1/6, and withheld information when prosecuting in a brady violation. never would have guessed such an organization would conduct itself this way

if we're buy what they're selling, why didn't they have heightened security in attack they knew was coming and was, according to them, in some ways worse than 9/11? weird
 

Lexicus

Deity
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
28,711
Location
Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
oh look, what a surprise. fbi had 8 people in proud boys months before 1/6, and withheld information when prosecuting in a brady violation. never would have guessed such an organization would conduct itself this way

if we're buy what they're selling, why didn't they have heightened security in attack they knew was coming and was, according to them, in some ways worse than 9/11? weird

Probably because the FBI is chock full of people with the same ideology as you and the rioters
 

Hygro

soundcloud.com/hygro/
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
25,250
Location
California
Yeah. And then even more just can't believe the fascists are here as they come with memes and jeans.
 

Birdjaguar

Hanafubuki
Super Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
Messages
50,406
Location
Albuquerque, NM
It has only taken the WSJ almost 2 years to figure it out, but they are finally coming around.

John Eastman’s Sorry Excuse for Jan. 6

In the lead-up to the Jan. 6 riot, John East-man gave President Trump legal advice that was terrible, and now he’s trying to argue it was merely awful. In a letter to these pages on Nov. 14, Mr. Eastman, a former law professor of some distinction, denies he argued that Vice President Mike Pence “could unilaterally reject electoral votes and simply declare President Trump re-elected.” Mr. Eastman claims he made only a modest proposal, Swiftian allusion intended: “The advice I gave to then-Vice President Pence was that he accede to requests from hundreds of state lawmakers to delay proceedings for a short time so that they could assess the effect of illegalities on the conduct of the election.” Mr. Eastman specifically refers to a conversation during an Oval Office meeting on Jan. 4, 2021.

But his position is contradicted by the sworn testimony of Mr. Pence’s legal counsel, Greg Jacob. According to Mr. Jacob, Mr. Eastman argued at the Jan. 4 meeting that it would, in fact, be “ legally viable” for the VP to reject electors. Mr. Eastman advised against this plan only because it would be “ less politically palatable.” That concession apparently didn’t last.

The debate was renewed the next morning, Jan. 5. “When Mr. Eastman came in,” Mr. Jacob testified, “ he said, I’m here to request that you reject the electors. So on the 4th, that had been the path that he had said, I’m not recommending that you do that. But on the 5th, he came in and expressly requested that.” A piece of Mr. Jacob’s handwritten notes is in the public record. The top reads: “John Eastman meeting 1/5/21.” Then: “Requesting VP reject.” There also are the two memos Mr. Eastman produced in advance of Jan. 6, which circulated among Mr. Trump’s advisers. “Here’s the scenario we propose,” the first one says. The VP “announces that because of the ongoing disputes,” seven states have “no electors that can be deemed validly appointed,” and “Pence then gavels President Trump as reelected.” The second memo offers a menu of options. One is for Mr. Pence to outright reject electors. A final thing to point out is that the argument in Mr. Eastman’s letter isn’t a defense. It’s more like a plea bargain to a lesser transgression against the American republic. Asking Mr. Pence to reverse the 2020 election directly was appalling. Asking the VP to stall the Electoral College, so that state legislatures could reverse the 2020 election, was also appalling.

Suppose Mr. Pence had tried to delay. The result would have been a constitutional crisis. Federal law sets the time for choosing presidential electors, and it’s Election Day in November. Mr. Trump wanted state lawmakers to overrule the will of the voters two months later, and two weeks before the scheduled transfer of power, despite no proof of widespread voter fraud. Doing this could have led to violence.

Also, the 12th Amendment says the Electoral College shall be tallied “ in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives.” Democrats controlled the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not have permitted any joint session to reconvene and tally those phony electors. With no Electoral College count by noon on Jan. 20, who’s next in line to become President? The Speaker of the House. Or perhaps the Supreme Court would have intervened. Getting this history right matters. “The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors,” Mr. Trump tweeted on Jan. 5, 2021, the day before the riot. He didn’t come up with that idea himself.

 

Gori the Grey

The Poster
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
8,407
Last edited:

TheMeInTeam

If A implies B...
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
27,658
Rhodes convicted of seditious conspiracy.


Now can we say it has played out?
yep, significant fed involvement before 1/6. tainted narrative publicly. these convictions seem about as legit as the "fbi's whitmer kidnapping plot" convictions after all, right down to advance fed involvement that makes the events (as described) strange. if feds knew about 1/6 significantly in advance, i don't see a way to conclude anything but government malice wrt decisions involving security leading up to it.

the other people might be criminals, but now we have evidence that known criminals (fbi) were involved as well

edit: note that the conviction you reference very likely involves brady violation(s). you cool with brady violations?
 

Gori the Grey

The Poster
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
8,407
The point in question was whether there was a seditious conspiracy.

Do you take today's convictions as establishing that there was a seditious conspiracy?

Stop with your silliness about "the fbi is bad too." Rhodes' defense lawyers could have presumably used that argument if there was any way of it's getting him off the hook, and didn't. It's irrelevant to the question at hand.
 

TheMeInTeam

If A implies B...
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
27,658
i take convictions with prosecutorial misconduct as fake

it isn't just "fbi is bad" as some red herring. the fbi seems to have literally been in on this particular case, let it happen anyway (?) including less security than usual on 1/6, and illegally withheld information in court proceedings involving case. that isn't just "bad".

court that ignores brady violation in this context is corrupt. i ask again, you cool with brady violations?
 

Gori the Grey

The Poster
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
8,407
i take convictions with prosecutorial misconduct as fake
Ok, so now I gotta wait until all appeals have been exhausted?

I'm a patient man.
 

Farm Boy

Useless, useless.
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
23,762
The point in question was whether there was a seditious conspiracy.

Do you take today's convictions as establishing that there was a seditious conspiracy?

Stop with your silliness about "the fbi is bad too." Rhodes' defense lawyers could have presumably used that argument if there was any way of it's getting him off the hook, and didn't. It's irrelevant to the question at hand.
If you believe the FBI has a history of entrapment and abuse of power, then the legitimacy of the counterpoint of sedition and treason is, well, yeah. I mean, Martin Luther King and all...
 

Gori the Grey

The Poster
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
8,407
If you believe the FBI has a history of entrapment and abuse of power,
One can believe that. But to keep denying that there was a conspiracy to overthrow the US government after this conviction means that you also have to believe that twelve random residents of DC are also involved in that abuse of power. That was the whole reason for my putting TMIT back on the spot in light of the conviction.

But convictions can be a result of prosecutorial misconduct (it turns out), so now I have to wait another while to see whether TMIT will make good on his boast regarding his intellectual honesty: that he would change his mind if there ever appeared a written record of such a conspiracy.

But I got nothin' to do but this, so I'll wait.
 

Farm Boy

Useless, useless.
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
23,762
Well, the principle reason to not trust capital punishment is a failure of trust in juries to not condemn to die innocent men on the word of prosecutors. Generally speaking convictions take a grain of salt. Politically rife convictions by the FBI? Boy howdy that should give even the most fervent patriot some high blood pressure.
 

Gori the Grey

The Poster
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
8,407
1) we're not talking about the sentence here, just the verdict of guilty.
2) no jury reaches a verdict "on the word of prosecutors"; the defense gets to make its best arguments as well
3) the prosecution has to convince twelve people; the defense only one; they couldn't do that in this case
4) your line of reasoning here effectively discredits the very notion of trial by jury
5) I count myself a fervent patriot, and my blood pressure will, if anything, have decreased in the wake of this verdict; a little of the anxiety I've felt about the fact that there are people who want to overthrow our government subsides with the fact that a half dozen of such are headed to the pokey.
 

Farm Boy

Useless, useless.
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
23,762
Juries are juries. They're better than hanging judges but man alive, 12 Angry Men is an aspirational sort of thing.
 

Gori the Grey

The Poster
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
8,407
Have you served, or is this your first summons? Don't work to evade being selected. Serve. Tell me what you think.
 

RobAnybody

Emperor
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
1,625
If you believe the FBI has a history of entrapment and abuse of power, then the legitimacy of the counterpoint of sedition and treason is, well, yeah. I mean, Martin Luther King and all...
MLK died roughly 55 years ago, before most of us were even born.
 
Top Bottom