So I'm confused. If someone says they think the 2020 election was fraudulent, and it clearly was, they can be prosecuted for insurrection.

But if Democratic voters chant "Death to America" that is perfectly ok. I'm sorry, that is insurrection.

Every one of those sobs should be prosecuted for insurrection if they are a citizen. If they are not, they should be deported. IMHO.

Can you name anyone who was prosecuted just for saying the election was fraudulent? As opposed to joining in a violent insurrection, I mean.

The remainder of your post is even sillier.

I’m confused. Why has the Republican Party become the party of the eternal crybaby? Why can’t they just grab their balls and admit they wanted to overthrow an election? At least pretend they have a pair of balls.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
So I'm confused. If someone says they think the 2020 election was fraudulent, and it clearly was, they can be prosecuted for insurrection.

But if Democratic voters chant "Death to America" that is perfectly ok. I'm sorry, that is insurrection.

Every one of those sobs should be prosecuted for insurrection if they are a citizen. If they are not, they should be deported. IMHO.

1) It was not fraudulent.

2) You can think and say the election was fraudulent all you want. No one is arresting you today. One cannot defy the results and courts on the matter w violence. You do not get to decide for yourself that an election must be overturned w violence.

You are no patriot.

. . . anyone continuing to sing the fraudulent election song at this point drank the Kool-Aid long ago.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
So I'm confused. If someone says they think the 2020 election was fraudulent, and it clearly was, they can be prosecuted for insurrection.

But if Democratic voters chant "Death to America" that is perfectly ok. I'm sorry, that is insurrection.

Every one of those sobs should be prosecuted for insurrection if they are a citizen. If they are not, they should be deported. IMHO.

One, the premise is flawed because there is zero evidence the 2020 election was fraudulent. I invite you post evidence to the contrary.

Two, saying "Death to America" is protected speech under the 1st Amendment.

Three, there's a difference between speech and active, physical efforts such as storming the US Capital building to prevent the certification of the result of a general election.

Are you really a lawyer?

There is a legal definition of fraudulent.

The election wasn’t.

Inappropriately conducted?

That I will agree with. All the changes in how voting was conducted didn’t run through the usual legal process.

I don’t think the ballot harvesting was legally fraudulent. But it certainly wasn’t appropriate in my mind.

And now it appears to be becoming the new norm.

quote:

Are you really a lawyer?

He quite possibly is - where he is a lawyer is another matter.

Yes, I'm a lawyer and I'm embarrassed by the ignorance of my fellow Americans. But whenever someone says "Death to America" that goes far beyond the First Amendment and is far beyond whatever happened on January 6. They should be prosecuted.

So you freeze free speech so long as you agree with the speech.

As I said, you are free from arrest to spout/say the lie bring the election was stolen, and the lie the Jan 6 actors and President Trump are patriots.

Others are free to tell you that is foolishness.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
There is a legal definition of fraudulent.

The election wasn’t.

Inappropriately conducted?

That I will agree with. All the changes in how voting was conducted didn’t run through the usual legal process.

I don’t think the ballot harvesting was legally fraudulent. But it certainly wasn’t appropriate in my mind.

And now it appears to be becoming the new norm.

It may have escaped your notice but the election was conducted in the middle of a pandemic that killed a million Americans.

What changes were not challenged in court and found perfectly legal? Did any of those changes prevent voters from either Party from having a fair opportunity to cast their votes?

Or did they provide too much opportunity?

When someone spouts "Death to America" that is treason. And last time I checked, that was punishable by death.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Yes, I'm a lawyer and I'm embarrassed by the ignorance of my fellow Americans. But whenever someone says "Death to America" that goes far beyond the First Amendment and is far beyond whatever happened on January 6. They should be prosecuted.

Words certainly matter.
President Trump called for a suspension of the Constitution, I didn't make that up and I'm sure you are aware of the quote, what do you recommend for prosecution?

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
When someone spouts "Death to America" that is treason. And last time I checked, that was punishable by death.

Actually, it's nothing of the kind.

"Treason" is defined by the Constitution, one of only three crimes specifically mentioned (along with counterfeiting and piracy) thusly: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

No Court in the Country would find shouting "Death to America" is Treason, and no semi-competent attorney would expect one would.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
When someone spouts "Death to America" that is treason. And last time I checked, that was punishable by death.

How did you pass the bar exam?

That's some of the worst advice I've heard.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason

Not seeing "Death to America".

I'm done talking to morons.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
I'm done talking to morons.

Been standing in front of a mirror?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
When someone spouts "Death to America" that is treason. And last time I checked, that was punishable by death.

How did you pass the bar exam?

That's some of the worst advice I've heard.

He missed the day at law school where they were teaching law.

Well as a nonlawyer, can’t one make an argument that saying death to America is giving aid and comfort to our enemies?

That’s treason.

Now it’s not a time of war, but then neither was 1/6, yet many want to call that treason.

I get that the bonehead who yells that hasn’t actually done anything other than maybe use “fighting words” and by law we allow citizens great leeway via our individually protected rights.

Let’s just be a bit consistent here.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Well as a nonlawyer, can’t one make an argument that saying death to America is giving aid and comfort to our enemies?

That’s treason.

Now it’s not a time of war, but then neither was 1/6, yet many want to call that treason.

I get that the bonehead who yells that hasn’t actually done anything other than maybe use “fighting words” and by law we allow citizens great leeway via our individually protected rights.

Let’s just be a bit consistent here.

A damned fool can say anything, doesn't make it so.

Of the U.S. was in a declared war; maybe. See how we treated Socialist during WWI.

Luckily, we have incorporated the 1st Amendment, and created Strict Scrutiny to address whether a legislative restriction upon the right is meritorious.

Without a declared war and a direct threat. The courts have tightened the what can be a threat. The answer is no and good for it.
Crbutler wanting to bring back the Adams’
Administration Alien and Sedition Acts (1798).

As others have pointed out what you think treason is, is not what federal law defines it as.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Well as a nonlawyer, can’t one make an argument that saying death to America is giving aid and comfort to our enemies?

That’s treason.

Now it’s not a time of war, but then neither was 1/6, yet many want to call that treason.

I get that the bonehead who yells that hasn’t actually done anything other than maybe use “fighting words” and by law we allow citizens great leeway via our individually protected rights.

Let’s just be a bit consistent here.

Jan 6 wasn't treason, though traitorous;

It was an insurrection.

And no one from Jan 6 is charged w treason.

That hasn’t stopped some here from opining it such.

It hasn’t stopped lots of the press from calling it such.

It is one thing for it to fit the letter of the law, and another for someone to be charged and convicted of it.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
That hasn’t stopped some here from opining it such.

It hasn’t stopped lots of the press from calling it such.

It is one thing for it to fit the letter of the law, and another for someone to be charged and convicted of it.

No, those are the same thing. Anybody charged and convicted for something that doesn't fit the letter of the law will win on appeal.

Approximately 90% of those convicted for Jan 6 were convicted of assaulting police officers who were defending our Capitol.

You miss the other direction

If you meet the letter of the law for conviction, but the DA refuses to indict, what happens?

CA.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
That hasn’t stopped some here from opining it such.

It hasn’t stopped lots of the press from calling it such.

It is one thing for it to fit the letter of the law, and another for someone to be charged and convicted of it.

No, those are the same thing. Anybody charged and convicted for something that doesn't fit the letter of the law will win on appeal.

Approximately 90% of those convicted for Jan 6 were convicted of assaulting police officers who were defending our Capitol.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You miss the other direction

If you meet the letter of the law for conviction, but the DA refuses to indict, what happens?

CA.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
That hasn’t stopped some here from opining it such.

It hasn’t stopped lots of the press from calling it such.

It is one thing for it to fit the letter of the law, and another for someone to be charged and convicted of it.

No, those are the same thing. Anybody charged and convicted for something that doesn't fit the letter of the law will win on appeal.

Approximately 90% of those convicted for Jan 6 were convicted of assaulting police officers who were defending our Capitol.

Why do we park on a driveway and drive on a parkway?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

Approximately 90% of those convicted for Jan 6 were convicted of assaulting police officers who were defending our Capitol.

factually untrue, but we all know math is hard for you - Let's see what the DOJ has to say on the matter?
https://www.justice.gov/usao-d...%20to%20misdemeanors.

1,265 defendants with 452 charged w assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees. That includes approximately 123 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. Those would be felonies.

My math says 35 percent with me rounding down down.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
1,265 defendants with 452 charged w assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees. That includes approximately 123 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. Those would be felonies.

My math says 35 percent with me rounding down down.

Poor choice of words on my part, 90% of those incarcerated assaulted police, almost everybody not charged with assault got, at most, home detention.

Fair. I just thought we would crunch the number.

Over a third is still high.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Fair. I just thought we would crunch the number.

Over a third is still high.

I never mind being corrected when I mis-state something.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . anyone continuing to sing the fraudulent election song at this point drank the Kool-Aid long ago.

you mean al gore or Hillary?