09 May 23
@no1marauder saidThe words "fight like hell" have been used figuratively by democrats and republicans alike many many times throughout history.
"If we allow this group of people to illegally take over our country because it's illegal when the votes are illegal when the way they got there is illegal when the states that vote are given false and fraudulent information."
"And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
"So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Ave ...[text shortened]... o at the Capitol on January 6th 2021 to "fight like hell" or they wouldn't have a "country anymore"?
You are ignoring the history of democrats using that very term often which I have proven to you before, yet you keep lying about the double standard often. STOP IT!
@metal-brain saidYou've done nothing but carry water for Trump for 7 years. And your constant knowingly false claims other people are "lying" should get you banned.
The words "fight like hell" have been used figuratively by democrats and republicans alike many many times throughout history.
You are ignoring the history of democrats using that very term often which I have proven to you before, yet you keep lying about the double standard often. STOP IT!
You didn't answer my question; regardless of prior "figurative" uses of the term, what could the mob do on January 6th to "fight like hell" "stop the steal" and assure they'd "have a country anymore" in their and Trump's minds? Mill around in front of the Capitol? Within minutes of hearing those words, thousands were attacking police to gain entry to the Capitol and try to prevent the certification of the election.
You regard that as an incredible coincidence?
09 May 23
@no1marauder saidCoincidence not. One of the defense's arguments in trial of the accused Proud Boys was that they were innocent of planning sedition because Trump was the one who planned it; the Proud Boys were 'just following orders.' It doesn't get any more blatant than that.
You've done nothing but carry water for Trump for 7 years. And your constant knowingly false claims other people are "lying" should get you banned.
You didn't answer my question; regardless of prior "figurative" uses of the term, what could the mob do on January 6th to "fight like hell" "stop the steal" and assure they'd "have a country anymore" in their and Trump's m ...[text shortened]... try to prevent the certification of the election.
You regard that as an incredible coincidence?
@moonbus saidThis is interesting. Got a source? In particular looking for the quote 'just following orders'. Was that for all Proud Boy members, or on an individual basis. It has been established that Jan 6th was not an official proud boy event, i.e. those proud boy members that attended were not representing the group. It's a bit like saying a plumber attended Jan 6th, was he doing plumbing at the capitol?
Coincidence not. One of the defense's arguments in trial of the accused Proud Boys was that they were innocent of planning sedition because Trump was the one who planned it; the Proud Boys were 'just following orders.' It doesn't get any more blatant than that.
@Metal-Brain
And you know good and well he only said that so he could claim I was peaceful BS later. You really fool nobody here.
@wajoma said"Defense attorneys countered that the Justice Department was using the group as a scapegoat for the real person to blame for Jan. 6: Donald Trump."
This is interesting. Got a source? In particular looking for the quote 'just following orders'. Was that for all Proud Boy members, or on an individual basis. It has been established that Jan 6th was not an official proud boy event, i.e. those proud boy members that attended were not representing the group. It's a bit like saying a plumber attended Jan 6th, was he doing plumbing at the capitol?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jury-reaches-verdict-proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-trial-rcna81129
"Tarrio's lawyers basically said he's a scapegoat for the former president, that it was too hard or too complicated for the Justice Department to charge Donald Trump with wrongdoing, and so the government went after Enrique Tarrio."
"Prosecutors basically argue that these men lined up as a fighting force for former President Donald Trump and agreed to do everything they could, including force, to keep Trump in power and basically overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
They started the story with that presidential debate, where Trump asked the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by, continued it through December 2020 with Trump encouraging people to come to the Capitol and saying "It will be wild," and then tracing a number of chat messages and videos and podcasts to the day of January 6 itself, when some of these men were involved in some of the earliest breaches at the Capitol Complex that day."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/proud-boys-members-convicted-of-seditious-conspiracy-in-jan-6-case
"A lawyer for Tarrio sought to push the blame onto Trump, arguing the former president incited the pro-Trump mob’s attack when he urged the crowd near the White House to “fight like hell. It was Donald Trump’s words. It was his motivation. It was his anger that caused what occurred on January 6th in your beautiful and amazing city,” attorney Nayib Hassan said in his final appeal to jurors. “It was not Enrique Tarrio. They want to use Enrique Tarrio as a scapegoat for Donald J. Trump and those in power.”
https://apnews.com/article/jan-6-enrique-tarrio-seditious-conspiracy-trial-f8738f17552cda21eef6d89504da2a0e
Satisfied now? It doesn't get any more blatant than that: the Proud Boys' own lawyers were arguing that there was indeed a plot to commit sedition, namely to overturn the election result and stop the lawful certification of Biden as legitimate president by force, and that tRump was the instigator. When tRump said "stand back and stand by" and "fight like hell" and "take back our country", the Proud Boys themselves claimed they understood those to be 'marching orders' from their commander-in-chief. They didn't even bother to deny what they had done was felonious; they tried to argue they weren't responsible for it, tRump was.
@no1marauder saidThe people advising Trump, and Trump himself, look very foolish now, if they genuinely believed that by disrupting the largely ceremonial certification of Biden's win, Biden would not be(come) president and that Trump would stay in office as the fall-back position. I mean, supposing an unruly mob had penetrated Westminster Abbey and disrupted the coronation ceremony, that would not have prevented Charles from being king. Sheesh, how dumb can you get? I hope Tarrio and his co-conspirators have a long, boring time behind bars to reflect that people died because of their foolish 'party-boy' shenanigans.
Maybe it would be more accurate to call it a "pre-coup"; it wasn't trying to overthrow the existing government but rather prevent a legal transfer of power.
@moonbus saidThe certification of the election results is hardly "ceremonial". It is a requirement under the Constitution.
The people advising Trump, and Trump himself, look very foolish now, if they genuinely believed that by disrupting the largely ceremonial certification of Biden's win, Biden would not be(come) president and that Trump would stay in office as the fall-back position. I mean, supposing an unruly mob had penetrated Westminster Abbey and disrupted the coronation ceremony, t ...[text shortened]... oring time behind bars to reflect that people died because of their foolish 'party-boy' shenanigans.
IF the mob had reached the Senators and Representatives before they could be evacuated and held them hostage until they accepted the slate of pro-Trump delegates from Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan and other States, it would have created, at the very least, a Constitutional crisis.
@no1marauder saidThe mob could have delayed, but not invalidated, the certification of Biden as president. The states’ tallies were already fixed. In no case would Trump have remained in office past his exit date. Even if Biden had not been declared the victor on Jan. 6, the chain of command would have kicked in until a result was certified: viz. Speaker of the House, Chief Justice, and so on. Trump’s advisors advised him poorly if he thought, as he evidently did think, that disrupting the process on Jan. 6 would lead to him remaining in power.
The certification of the election results is hardly "ceremonial". It is a requirement under the Constitution.
IF the mob had reached the Senators and Representatives before they could be evacuated and held them hostage until they accepted the slate of pro-Trump delegates from Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan and other States, it would have created, at the very least, a Constitutional crisis.
10 May 23
@moonbus saidUnfortunately, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 hardly made the State's tallies "fixed":
The mob could have delayed, but not invalidated, the certification of Biden as president. The states’ tallies were already fixed. In no case would Trump have remained in office past his exit date. Even if Biden had not been declared the victor on Jan. 6, the chain of command would have kicked in until a result was certified: viz. Speaker of the House, Chief Justice, and so o ...[text shortened]... he evidently did think, that disrupting the process on Jan. 6 would lead to him remaining in power.
"But the Constitution itself is unclear on what happens if there’s a dispute over the electors themselves while the votes are counted. The ECA lays out the procedures for what happens if a state’s results are questioned, as well as if multiple sets of electors are presented to the vice president for the formal count. "
https://newrepublic.com/article/162853/electoral-college-law-reform-election-integrity
IF a majority in the House and Senate had been coerced into invalidating a sufficient number of electors and either replacing them with Trump electors or simply refusing to count their votes, Trump would have had the majority of Electoral College votes on January 6th.
@no1marauder saidNo doubt that is why legislation was introduced to require states to clearly identify electors in advance.
Unfortunately, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 hardly made the State's tallies "fixed":
"But the Constitution itself is unclear on what happens if there’s a dispute over the electors themselves while the votes are counted. The ECA lays out the procedures for what happens if a state’s results are questioned, as well as if multiple sets of electors are presented to the v ...[text shortened]... g to count their votes, Trump would have had the majority of Electoral College votes on January 6th.
But really, the EC should be abolished. Its purpose made sense in a time when the fastest way to transmit information was horseback. It doesn't make sense any more. The candidate who polls the most popular votes should get the win; simple, effective, and fair.
13 May 23
@no1marauder saidEveryone has the constitutional right to contest elections. Your contempt for that is extremely stupid. Would you have Kari Lake censored for contesting the election in her state?
You've done nothing but carry water for Trump for 7 years. And your constant knowingly false claims other people are "lying" should get you banned.
You didn't answer my question; regardless of prior "figurative" uses of the term, what could the mob do on January 6th to "fight like hell" "stop the steal" and assure they'd "have a country anymore" in their and Trump's m ...[text shortened]... try to prevent the certification of the election.
You regard that as an incredible coincidence?
Nobody urged people to go into the CB except Ray Epps, yet you have no problem with him going free. I think you an apologist for this country being a dictatorship. You like deep state plants like Ray Epps to conspire sedition and go free. You want to blame everyone but him. Why?
You should be banned for hypocrisy and condoning Ray Epps' sedition while condemning others for much less meddling. Ray Epps even said he "orchestrated it" in a text. Why are you fine with him getting away with that?
@metal-brain saidMoron.
Everyone has the constitutional right to contest elections. Your contempt for that is extremely stupid. Would you have Kari Lake censored for contesting the election in her state?
Nobody urged people to go into the CB except Ray Epps, yet you have no problem with him going free. I think you an apologist for this country being a dictatorship. You like deep state plants ...[text shortened]... Ray Epps even said he "orchestrated it" in a text. Why are you fine with him getting away with that?