01-07-2024, 10:05 PM
(01-07-2024, 08:20 PM)Dill Wrote: GEEZUS. There was a PLAN TO THROW THE VOTE TO THE HOUSE. That would have meant "maintaining control" with the then-present government. No need to "install" a new one.
This is only "debatable" in the sense, and for the same reasons, that some Republicans still debate whether the Capitol Breach was directed by the FBI or not.
It is faulty logic to argue that if no one has been convicted of a crime one could not have been committed. Asking why there has been "NO ONE charged or convicted" of insurrection just illustrates how deeply you misrecognize the problem, the mismatch between the danger and our institutional/constitutional means of coping with it.
With the exception of those who lost standing and office for doing the right thing, you have an entire political party hindering investigations, and a massive
right wing news media effort to re-brand the insurrectionists as "patriots" and accountability as "weaponization"--thus framing accountability as merely
the effort of one party to get rid of a popular opponent by jailing him, as they do in banana republics.
And that's the interpretation you appear to be pushing here and in the post immediately following, where you affirm "rule of law" to oppose accountability.
The core of the issue, which you've yet to acknowledge, is whether Trump and cronies attempted to circumvent a legal election to remain in power. That his party "acquitted" him of wrongdoing is a part of the problem, why democracy is indeed at stake in the prosecution of Trump. That refusal to hold him accountable is precisely what undermines the rule of law by placing him above the law.
You should try reading a few of the dissents in the Colorado case, one I'll point out reversed a lower court in a 4-3 vote. It's not nearly as simple as pronouncing a riot an "insurrection", and then manufacturing connections and plotting where there is none to envoke a 150 year old law that's rarely been used.
Being truly for the rule of law and Democracy isn't just when it's convenient or comfortable, but precisely when it's NOT that it's most important hold the line. That people like you conflate believing in a lawful and judicial process is an abhorent "defense of Trump" is precisely why it's so important for the SCOTUS to get this right. It's not about accountability and never has been - from Day 1 it's been about obstructing and removing Trump from office, so spare me the diatribe about how only one party and their media engage in this. They both do it, and they continue to do it because people on both sides are all too happy to look the other way when their side does it.
And it is indeed a slippery slope, as there are efforts to remove Trump supporters in the Senate and House under the same statute.
Also, I've already acknowledged that Trump should have been impeached twice, and should be disqualified for election interference and fraud. However, that is not the law. Please don't put words in my mouth, especially when I've already written otherwise.
I'll say it clearly for you if it wasn't already obvious from an objective reading of what I wrote: Trump tried to circumvent the election. He will likely be convicted on multiple accounts for that. However, that does not prevent him from running for POTUS, something you continue to either ignore or fail to acknowledge. And fraud is not insurrection. Insurrection is not a simple declaration, that are strict and difficult legal tests, which is why no one has been charged.
I guess where you and I defer are I believe in the rule of law and due process to stop Trump, where with you it seems anything is justified to keep him out of office. Except, apparently, allowing people to vote.
It's just bizarre to me how people talk about Democracy being at stake out of one side of their mouth, and out the other advocate a decidedly undemocratic approach to achieve that. But, I guess that's another place we defer.
--------------------------------------------------------
