ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,474 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
14 minutes ago, B-Man said:
FTA:
As I’ve shared before, I just don’t get the whole “false electors” obsession nor do I see any illegality in it. All it entailed was a group of self-chosen “alternative” electors making a purely ceremonial and non-legally biding commitment to vote for Trump if decertification happened. I’m not going to argue with those that find that objectionable, but there’s a difference between objectionable and criminal.
None of the “false electors” ever cast a vote for anything, they didn’t interfere with the election, and the original electors cast their votes for Joe Biden. If that’s what the DOJ is probing, good luck proving a “seditious conspiracy” without any actual attempt at sedition on the record. Besides, how can something be a conspiracy when the plans were public knowledge at the time?
Moving on to the idea that Trump criminally conspired to obstruct a government proceeding, that doesn’t make much sense either. Trump was asking former Vice President Mike Pence to do something he felt was legal under the Electoral College Act. It is not “obstructing” a government proceeding if you intend to use legal mechanisms to reach your goal.
Yes, in the end, Pence decided he didn’t believe he had the power, but obviously, Trump thought otherwise. There’s no intent there. Are we going to start criminalizing all possible misinterpretations of law by politicians? Because that would be quite the can of worms to open.
In the end, the DOJ’s pursuit, if the Post’s sourcing is accurate, just seems like a big reach to please the January 6th committee and Democrats at large. Still, it’s probably best to just embrace the chaos at this point. Things are so far off the rails that you might as well kick back and enjoy the show. Let’s see how charging Trump criminally for a bunch of probable non-crimes works out.
The fake electors signed documents that they were the true electors and transmitted those documents to the national archive. That is fraud. There is no legal justification for their actions.
Where the conspiracy to defraud comes into play is that some of Trump's advisors wanted the fake electors to take those actions so that when Pence rejects the certification, they can have Congress vote on which slates of electors to accept, hoping they would select the fake electors and overturn the election.
Here is a timeline of the scheme: https://www.justsecurity.org/81939/timeline-false-alternate-slate-of-electors-scheme-donald-trump-and-his-close-associates/
-
1
-
1
-
-
I understand why everyone focuses on the violence of January 6th, but a charge under 18 U.S. Code § 2384 is probably the least likely charge due to the difficulty in proving intent.
If Trump himself actually faces a charge, it is far more likely to be either 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States or 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees.
Given what we've seen in the reporting, it seems the DoJ is very interested in the fake electors scheme, which would likely fall under conspiracy to defraud the United States.
All of that being said, I am skeptical that Merrick Garland would approve an indictment of Trump himself, even if it ends up being a slam dunk case.
-
50 minutes ago, Irv said:
Nothing to see here. Pelosi looking for hot stock tips for her husband in Taiwan.
She’s gotta check out some of the chip manufacturers to know which ones to buy stock in… err… include in the CHIPS bill…-
3
-
1
-
-
I see we’ve gotten to the “make fun of someone for identifying themselves at an event for people with disabilities, including the visually impaired” part of the discourse.
Truly, lovely people right here.
-
51 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Goose, I’ve come to respect the depth and reasoning that you come to your opinions but no matter how many REALLY LONG entries you post they’re still just your opinions. Try and respect other people’s opinions. I think you’ll find it to be fun!
Yes, it is my opinion that allowing states to legislate rights is dangerous and in this case will result in increases of maternal morbidity, uncertainly in healthcare, and pave a nice slope for zealots to see how many things that Americans currently enjoy they can outlaw. -
45 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Nice Goose. When you don’t get your way, start tossing out the asinine label. I’m willing to let the legislature give it a try. You apparently are not. It doesn’t make me an ass. It just makes me a guy with a different opinion. DEAL WITH IT.
I think it’s fair to debate when life begins. That’s a reasonable thing to have differing opinions on.
But to look at the current abortion law landscape, their effects, and the trends, and to think that they are moving in a direction that balances the rights of women and their healthcare against that of the fetus takes an incredible amount of credulity.
-
1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:
Wrong. First, let the legislature do its job. If cases arise from their legislative actions, then the court can rule, or the legislature can rewrite their legislation. Trust the Process.
“Trust the process” is an incredibly belittling and asinine response.All day, every day on this board, everyone talks about how corrupt all politicians are. How they don’t care about the people, only their own power and money.
And when we see something like a 10 year old rape victim having to cross state lines into Indiana, the actual reaction by politicians is for Indiana to pass tougher restricting and their AG to threaten to prosecute the doctor who performed the abortion.
In Texas, we see doctors waiting until a woman’s life is in danger to treat a non-viable pregnancy, and women who were trying to start families are now giving up because it’s too risky under the laws just passed by the legislature. A long-sought victory for “pro-life” people is resulting in an increase in sterilizations.
And in red states across the country, the reaction from politicians is to try to pass laws similar to those that resulted in these scenarios. Not prevent them, but to create more of them.
And your response is to ignore all of reality, put your blinders on, bury your head in the sand, and pretend none of this is happening and it will all magically be solved at some point in the nebulous future by virtuous legislatures responding to the will of the people.
How could anyone be convinced by that argument? It requires an insane amount of ignorance of reality.
-
1
-
-
Just now, SoCal Deek said:
And to quote you….and YOU get to be the one to decide for everyone else?
No. In the tradition of the founders, the courts should try to draw the lines on where our rights are. By abdicating this and leaving it to the states without any guardrails, we are asking for terrible things to happen.-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:
Via a bad ruling that was overturned. Some states may continue with that guideline and others may not. There is no problem here. Just diversity.
Yeah, and if states decide that rapists get to decide the mothers of their children even if the would-be mothers are children themselves, that’s fine! It’s the process working!-
1
-
-
Just now, Boatdrinks said:
And therein lies the b*+<#. Who shall determine this? Some compromise will likely be reached on this issue, with limitations at a certain point. Not all states will rule on this the same way. This diversity will continue to be our strength, as we can freely choose the state in which we reside.
We had that compromise: bodily autonomy in first trimester, right of the baby in the third trimester and states could regulate in the second trimester. -
57 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Why is this so FREAKING hard? You do NOT have the right to kill to someone!!
So you, and solely you, get to determine when life begins? -
18 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
Shouldn't those additional rights be either spelled out in the Constitution or provided through the establishment of law by the Legislative branch? And not through Judicial proclamations or interpretations as the court is not in the business of granting or defining rights. Given that context, I'm not clear how the court ruling violates or contradicts the 9th amendment.
This is a good question, I’ll take a stab at explaining it.The text of the constitution generally talks about what the government itself can or cannot do. It explains the boundaries of the government.
However, at the time there was concern about the rights of the people themselves. So while the Constitution spoke to the government, the Bill of Rights was drafted to outline the rights of the people.
This was controversial, because how could you possibly list every single right a person has? Many founders were concerned that future generations would interpret the Bill of Rights to be an exhaustive list of rights and that if something does not appear in its text, then it is not a right. The consequences of them not thinking of a right they believe in while drafting the amendments could be massive.
The solution was the 9th amendment which states that just because a right isn’t listed in the text does not mean it doesn’t exist. This is where we’re find the unenumerated rights. It is further expounded through subsequent amendments like the 14th. The Bill of Rights explicitly states some important rights, but it is not exhaustive of all rights retained by the people.
So I think it is fair to say that part of the Supreme Court’s job is to draw some lines in that gray area. And we can debate about where the best place is to draw that line.
However, the argument that something isn’t a right simply because it doesn’t appear in the text of the constitution or its amendments is antithetical to what the founders intended.
It’s hard to argue that something left to a legislature is a reliable right since it can easily be revoked by the legislature. I’d also encourage you to think about things that are not explicitly stated in the constitution that maybe you wouldn’t want to leave to the whims of politicians. Interracial marriage, privacy, even the right to travel, are all unenumerated rights not explicitly stated in the constitution. Do you think all of these should be left to politicians to decide, or would it be better for those rights to be established guardrails that legislatures cannot override? -
51 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
That is NOT the job of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is there to make distinctions about whether things are spelled out in the Constitution….not to create ‘rights’ that are not spelled out.
This would come as a surprise to the authors of the 9th amendment and the Bills of Rights in general. -
13 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:
Trump "knew he lost"???
He said for months before the election that the massive mail in balloting and other unconstitutional schemes were going to be a problem.
And they were, just like he said they would be.
Right or wrong Trump never did and never will "know he lost."
Wait I thought the sole purpose of the committee is to find out the truth about J6 so that it can never happen again?
Because your words here say the J6 committee is important so that the right people get elected in the midterms.
Something you've said that only people who don't know what they're talking about would suggest.
I’m beginning to feel bad ragging on you because I’m starting to think something might not be right with you given your demonstrated level of reading comprehension and grasp of reality.
The Trump campaign knew he lost. His top advisors looked into the fraud claims and found nothing. His lawyers did the same. His DoJ leadership as well. They chased down everything and found nothing to show he had won or that widespread fraud had taken place. All of these allegations of mail in fraud and they could find no evidence to support them.
When Trump would raise one of the conspiracies, they would explain to him that they had looked into it and there was nothing there. He would accept it and then ask about another one, which they had already debunked.
Even his looniest of advisors generally knew there was no widespread fraud. John Eastman admitted that the plan for Pence was illegal before they pushed for it. When asked in court during one of the lawsuits, Giuliani specifically stated that they were not alleging fraud.
The Trump campaign went 1-61 in court cases. Even when Trump appointed judges looked at the allegations (and yes, they even looked at the merits), they found nothing. In fact, some of the court filings by the Trump team were so bad and so baseless that the lawyers got sanctioned.
At this point, to believe that the election was stolen, you would have to believe that:
- Trump’s campaign, whose jobs depended on him winning were sabotaging him
- Trump’s lawyers, whose jobs depended on him winning, were sabotaging him
-Trump’s DoJ leadership, whose jobs depended on him winning, were sabotaging him
-Every judge they went to, including the ones appointed by Trump were corrupt
-Every person who testified about the election under oath was lying and only the people refusing to testify under oath are telling the truth
-The people testifying under oath did so to destroy their careers and face threats, so they are not credible. The people refusing to testify under oath are making money off Trump supporters so they are more credible
-The Democrats are so evil and immeasurably competent that they engineered a nationwide plan to steal the election but somehow forgot to do anything about the House and Senate seats (as well as state and local elections), resulting in them losing seats in the House and needing an improbable two wins in Georgia to have a tie Senate that would thwart most of their agenda. Not to mention putting the GOP in a position to continue to gerrymander the absolute hell out of a bunch of states.
And finally, it is entirely possible for someone to do something for a reason and have that action also cause other things to happen. It is not true to say that every consequence of an action is the intended result of that action, and your inability to grasp that despite having it explained to you many times makes me wonder how anyone takes anything you say seriously.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, njbuff said:
Says the biggest m0r0n on this message board.I got news for. People in this country don’t give a flying flip about Jan 6th.
Jan 6th isn’t going to buy food, pay mortgage/rent, buy gas or pay other bills.
Trump being in jail or not isn’t going to change one person’s life, so get off your high horse and live your life instead of obsessing about someone who isn’t even in office.
Does this Jan 6th thing affect your life in any way?
Just because something isn’t the most important thing to every voter doesn’t mean it’s not important at all. And just because many voters may not care about something doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t care about it.Donald Trump and a small handful of cronies tried to overturn an election they knew he had lost. Now, we have candidates across the country running on that baseless lie that Trump’s campaign, lawyers, and DoJ leadership have all rejected.
If these people are elected, then they will try to throw the 2024 election to their candidate regardless of whether or not that’s who the people voted for.
So yeah, I think it matters.
-
1
-
-
In Ohio, the people trusted the process and now rapists get to choose the mother of their children.
So we should all be happy that things have worked out well, right?
-
13 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
That’s the debate society is going to have….but what the court said is that it it’s not up to the judicial branch to make these decisions. That’s not what the court does! So, you petition your state legislature to make adjustments to your state’s laws. It’s how the process works.
“If women live in deep red states, screw them! Make children carry pregnancies to term no matter the risk! That’s what the people want! Trust the process! America!”I have to admit, it’s not a very convincing argument. What other rights should we let legislatures decide? Interracial marriage? Access to contraceptives? Which religion people practice?
I mean, I’m sure all of that would be fine so long as we “trust the process” right?
-
2 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Sums it up better than I could:-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:
Explain the thought process comparing the dumping of tea in a harbor to protest unfair taxation to breaking the window of a storefront (and taking a 65” flatscreen for oneself ) because a bad Cop somewhere killed a guy ?
I was directly responding to the post of throwing a brick, lighting a match, and taking down a statue.
All of those (I think it’s implied in the first two) are destruction of property and would amount to crimes if it wasn’t your property.
I never mentioned, referred to, or responded to anything about burning down black neighborhoods or looting. I don’t appreciate words being put in my mouth, but I get that things can get heated in political discussions and we bring our own biases in, coloring the words we read.
I wanted to know if there was a line between types of property destruction or if it was simply the viewpoint or content of the speech of the person doing the destruction.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
Isn’t there enough disingenuous behavior here already?
I’m just trying to find the line between what damage to property is acceptable in a protest and what isn’t. -
6 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:
Did you actually just compare burning down a black neighborhood to the Boston tea party?
Nope! Where did I say that?
-
3 minutes ago, B-Man said:
What about when they threw the first boxes of tea?-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:
So it is to cover things we already know? We know who was involved, we know what happened, and we know how to prevent it. Next time we have a publicly announced rally with people on TV stating they want to invade the capitol we actually have more police present than usual. The fact that the FBI and capitol Hill police are not the focus of the committee proves they are not doing what you claim.
We know everybody involved in the fake electors scheme? We know everyone in on the Eastman plan and their roles?There was more to this than the riot. There was a plan in motion and the rioters were not the only aspect of it.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Buffalo Timmy said:
I am curious what you think is the purpose?
To investigate the attempt to overturn the 2020 election. What happened? Who was involved? What changes can we make to prevent a future attempt?
Donald Trump is under criminal investigation by the Department of Justice
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I think we have enough evidence to charge several people close to Trump, and Trump himself, with conspiracy to defraud the United States. If a jury acquits him, then we *have* to accept that.
Whether or not Garland has the stones to actually do it, remains another question.