I see lots of folks here claiming that Trump is a seditionist. I took a casual survey of pertinent statutes (18 U.S. Code Chapter 115) and assuming Jack Smith, Merritt Garland, etc. can read the code better than I can (and probably the anti-Trump lawyers here, too), why wasn’t Trump so charged if there are competent and provable facts in accordance with the statutes.

Does Garland/Smith know he’d lose and he thought the non-indicted allegations were sufficient to sway the election but insufficient to result in a verdict, even in D.C.
Does Garland know something we don’t?
Did the Jan 6th committee discover evidence (since suppressed and destroyed, I.e., Trumps 2:30 Tweet urging protesters’ restraint only to have it censored by Twitter or Nancy Pelosi’s written refusal of Guard troops to protect the House). Is there evidence of Trumps actions that would make a conviction of the more serious charges impossible. How many FBI agents and paid operatives were at the demonstration and did any act as provocatures?

Hell, if Trump is truly a seditionist, doesn’t America deserve to have him charged instead of having to live with (perhaps politically and factually loaded) divisive allegations that over one-half of the electorate doesn’t believe.

I’m not belittling the extant charges or the evidence to sustain them, only wondering why a bite if the apple was all the DOJ went for if the whole apple was available.

Counts as now charged
Conspiracy to defraud the United States

Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding

Obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding

Conspiracy against rights

What do you think?

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
I see lots of folks here claiming that Trump is a seditionist. I took a casual survey of pertinent statutes (18 U.S. Code Chapter 115) and assuming Jack Smith, Merritt Garland, etc. can read the code better than I can (and probably the anti-Trump lawyers here, too), why wasn’t Trump so charged if there are competent and provable facts in accordance with the statutes.

Does Garland know he’d lose and he thought the non-indicted allegations were sufficient to sway the election but insufficient to result in a verdict, even in D.C.
Does Garland now something we don’t?

I’m not belittling the extant charges, only wondering why a bite if the apple was all the DOJ went for if the whole apple was available.

Counts as now charged
Conspiracy to defraud the United States

Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding

Obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding

Conspiracy against rights

What do you think?

it's all due to the evidence that would be available to opposing counsel. Not that having confidential sources in the crowd, justified the crowds actions. It open a window into the tactics used by the agencies that day.

I believe we will find out (ironically through Gaetz if confirmed) that there were literally hundreds of CI's, sources and planted agents in the crowd to help incite those events. Again, I do not believe it is an excuse for the riots.

Bat shit crazy, both of you

Trump refused to cool the rioters down!

By all intents HE should have been facing the music!

Of course, he is in charge now, thanks to Bimbo Word Salad!

I bet she has rotten Brussels sprouts for brains!

Assuming I’m batshit (lots of folks so agree), why wasn’t Trump charged with sedition, since the term is frequently bandied about as true here?

Humor me.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
Bat shit crazy, both of you

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Assuming I’m batshit (lots of folks so agree), why wasn’t Trump charged with sedition, since the term is frequently bandied about as true here?

Humor me.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
Bat shit crazy, both of you

Trump is an expert at avoiding the consequences of his actions, he and the RNC spent millions keeping that criminal out of jail by delaying his trail dates.

And there are those who represented him that he failed to pay(Rudy, etc)

A bigger POS than Trump has never been elected to any office.

I can’t understand how anyone who watched Trumps (and his cohorts) speeches that day - and particularly on that specific day and place - could have any doubts about the intent.

The intent was undoubtedly to bully Mike Pence into subverting the election results. Donald Trump is a seditionist, and was bolstered by a criminal group.

The charges and shaky undertakings referred to were no doubt caused by the nationally embarrassing and unprecedented occasion of having to prosecute the former head of state. It was like having to clean the barn, nobody wanted to do it.

I am just glad that the Democrats are not taking a page out of the Trump playbook and instead are demonstrating how a peaceful transfer of power is supposed to take place. You know, gracefully conceding the election, inviting the President-elect to the White House to pledge transition support, etc. Until 2020 I would have always believed that the adult in the room would have been the GOP, I would have never have guessed it would be the Democrats.

Yeah, like the Pa. dems, counting illegal ballots for senator, against their own courts ruling.

When you

1) Call the suspension of the Constitution

2) You declare immediate re-installment to political power you have no due right to.

3) You give your VP an unconstitutional directive to decertify the election to maintain power you have no right.

4) You engage in a campaign ti convince millions of votes the election was impure after losing in the courts.

5) You inspire people to violence. Violence that was intended to keep you in political power that you have no right to maintain.

6) You refuse to use our power mandated and obligated to stop that violence.

Is there evidence that Trump planned or engaged in the specific actions of convicted, conspirators to engage in sedation. The answer is no. I never thought there would be

What I know is the above actions by a setting and defeated president is worse than those who have been convicted of crimes from that day.

But they did prosecute on lesser charges. Why not Sedition if it’s so obvious. BTW, a couple of the charged statutes are so broad, an actor could never know what is prohibited. Say pulling a fire alarm to delay a vote on legislation you oppose… failing to go to a session to so that a quorum isn’t present… participating in a legal street demonstration but blocking traffic and legislators can’t readily get to a vote… writing an op-ed piece that promises a boycott of of a districts businesses if the legislature doesn’t vote the writer’s preference.

quote:

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
I can’t understand how anyone who watched Trumps (and his cohorts) speeches that day - and particularly on that specific day and place - could have any doubts about the intent.

The intent was undoubtedly to bully Mike Pence into subverting the election results. Donald Trump is a seditionist, and was bolstered by a criminal group.

The charges and shaky undertakings referred to were no doubt caused by the nationally embarrassing and unprecedented occasion of having to prosecute the former head of state. It was like having to clean the barn, nobody wanted to do it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

Is there evidence that Trump planned or engaged in the specific actions of convicted, conspirators to engage in sedation. The answer is no. I never thought there would be

Thank you for your opinion and honesty.
I’m not too far from the same conclusion …
It seems that intent is a huge factor in the charges as they exist. With the limited immunity ruling, if Trump believed a “stolen” election occurred, did he have a duty or remedy remedy FOR THE ALLEGED FRAUD ON THE COUNTRY and available in the few weeks between the election and Jan 6th. (Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton had one and succeeded in a plan to favorably count the tied electors’ votes for Jefferson and not Aaron Burr.) I ask this with my limited knowledge that most of the Trump challenges were dismissed procedurally and never after a full trial on the merits.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
But they did prosecute on lesser charges. Why not Sedition if it’s so obvious. BTW, a couple of the charged statutes are so broad, an actor could never know what is prohibited. Say pulling a fire alarm to delay a vote on legislation you oppose… failing to go to a session to so that a quorum isn’t present… participating in a legal street demonstration but blocking traffic and legislators can’t readily get to a vote… writing an op-ed piece that promises a boycott of of a districts businesses if the legislature doesn’t vote the writer’s preference.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

Is there evidence that Trump planned or engaged in the specific actions of convicted, conspirators to engage in sedation. The answer is no. I never thought there would be

Thank you for your opinion and honesty.
I’m not too far from the same conclusion …
It seems that intent is a huge factor in the charges as they exist. With the limited immunity ruling, if Trump believed a “stolen” election occurred, did he have a duty or remedy remedy FOR THE ALLEGED FRAUD ON THE COUNTRY and available in the few weeks between the election and Jan 6th. (Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton had one and succeeded in a plan to favorably count the tied electors’ votes for Jefferson and not Aaron Burr.) I ask this with my limited knowledge that most of the Trump challenges were dismissed procedurally and never after a full trial on the merits.

Because there was no facts direct, overt connecting Trump w a plan with those convicted w the conspiracy to engage in sedition.

You know the elements of a conspiracy, Judge. I have posted the numerous times concerning this conversation.

As for the Jessie charges, we will now never have them tested before a jury and appellate review.

What Trump did was motivate and undermine.

What are the Jessie charges?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

Is there evidence that Trump planned or engaged in the specific actions of convicted, conspirators to engage in sedation. The answer is no. I never thought there would be

Thank you for your opinion and honesty.
I’m not too far from the same conclusion …
It seems that intent is a huge factor in the charges as they exist. With the limited immunity ruling, if Trump believed a “stolen” election occurred, did he have a duty or remedy remedy FOR THE ALLEGED FRAUD ON THE COUNTRY and available in the few weeks between the election and Jan 6th. (Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton had one and succeeded in a plan to favorably count the tied electors’ votes for Jefferson and not Aaron Burr.) I ask this with my limited knowledge that most of the Trump challenges were dismissed procedurally and never after a full trial on the merits.

Because there was no facts direct, overt connecting Trump w a plan with those convicted w the conspiracy to engage in sedition.

You know the elements of a conspiracy, Judge. I have posted the numerous times concerning this conversation.

As for the Jessie charges, we will now never have them tested before a jury and appellate review.

What Trump did was motivate and undermine.

Lesser.

Have you figured out the definition of Hearsay yet, or when hearsay applies to prevent testimony or introduction of evidence?

Hearsay has some pretty specific rules around it in legal circles, and no, I’m not cognizant of what they are specifically in any given state.

Depending on what the rules are in the house, if it was a pure fishing expedition they may have “I heard a friend say that a friend said that a friend said that Gaetz stabbed JFK to death.”

It depends on the rules.

And releasing unsupported accusations publicly is not American.

So since I don’t know what rules the house ethics committee operates under, and that the information is not a matter of public record (yet anyhow) I’m ok with a decision being made to not release the information, as long as some statement is made about why it isn’t being released.

If it is in the house’s prerogative to release or not the information under law, then what is your problem with them following the law?

If Gaetz did a bunch of bad stuff, the information will come out.

So far I’m unimpressed with him, but the rules are the rules, aren’t they?

The ENTIRE SOROS OBAMA DEMOCRATIC PARTY came down on Trump for eight solid years. How did that turn out ?
BUNCH of losers if you look at their results.
4WD

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Hearsay has some pretty specific rules around it in legal circles, and no, I’m not cognizant of what they are specifically in any given state.

Depending on what the rules are in the house, if it was a pure fishing expedition they may have “I heard a friend say that a friend said that a friend said that Gaetz stabbed JFK to death.”

It depends on the rules.

And releasing unsupported accusations publicly is not American.

So since I don’t know what rules the house ethics committee operates under, and that the information is not a matter of public record (yet anyhow) I’m ok with a decision being made to not release the information, as long as some statement is made about why it isn’t being released.

If it is in the house’s prerogative to release or not the information under law, then what is your problem with them following the law?

If Gaetz did a bunch of bad stuff, the information will come out.

So far I’m unimpressed with him, but the rules are the rules, aren’t they?

The rules were made to protect him, and nothing says the rules cannot be to release the report to the Senate to use in vetting.

If o were a Senator, I would vote no simply bc the report was not made available to force the GOP House hand.

There are no Hearsay rules in the House. It only attaches when the rules of evidence apply. The rules of evidence do not apply to the House ethics proceeding. Technically, nothing is hearsay when the rules concerning hearsay do not apply

Saeed,

This comes to a question of "Duty", which is a question of law. Did the Democrats prevent the BLM rioters from burning down towns? No. Did they have a duty to do so? Interesting question, but none of them were prosecuted. So did Trump have a legal duty to prevent January 6? Doubt it.

Trump has an obligation not to inflame the country to cause Jan 6.

Trump did have a political duty to stop the violence when it began.

The answer to Trump was to impeach and convict in the Senate. The matter was a political issue and politics failed.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Trump has an obligation not to inflame the country to cause Jan 6.

Trump did have a political duty to stop the violence when it began.

The answer to Trump was to impeach and convict in the Senate. The matter was a political issue and politics failed.

Now do "rhetoric caused the assignation attempts"

I said when they happened the rhetoric by President Biden, specifically the President Biden bullseye comment was an issue.

I also said President Biden refusing to call the first attempt an assassination attempt was wrong and set a bad perception.

However, I do believe Trump’s refusal to concede the election and engage in a plan to prevent himself from transitioning power bring the electors scheme and permitting the violence designed to keep him in power are more egregious. That is because more people were affected and influenced by Trump’s campaign that destroyed millions of people’s trust in our fundamental institutions. That destruction permitted folks not only to engage in violence, but excuse the main who made the environment and did nothing to stop it.

The damage done to our fundamental intitutions was not caused by Trump. It’s been self inflicted by an ever increasing bureaucracy that is not responsive to the governed.

The way the CDC and NIH along with congress and the executive behaved during Covid just exposed what they have been doing for some time.

See the thread elsewhere in the forum about one of our member’s issues with the whole trusted traveler program and the inability to get an answer. This is what has been damaging trust. On the left, the system is tarnished by old racism and a legal system that tends to protect government.

The right is upset over fundamental changes in how things operate that are done through legal system actions and not legislation. Calling health care system regulation “taxation” so it’s something that congress has no real oversight over being an example there.

The divide between the urbanites and the more smaller communities is getting worse and this use of the institutions to get their way (on both sides) is why we are having problems.

Trump’s hissy fit and bad behavior would never have gotten the acceptance they did by the populace as a whole except for the underlying overreach by the bureaucracy.

It was caused by Trump and his refusal to concede the election with grace and dignity after the Court cases.

He was required to act like Al Gore. He chose to try to keep power.

Trump and his words and actions made everyone believe.

Those who know better on this site spewed this false gospel.

I don’t disagree that Trump was wrong to do what he did, and that it was not helpful, but the fundamental damage was there well before 1/6/20; heck it was there before the 2016 election.

Let not kid ourselves to think that Trump was the only one to do stuff illegal. All presidents either Dem or Rep have done stuff that would be considered illegal in any context except as POTUS. That is why the SC clarified that POTUS has immunity from official acts. It has to be that way. The perfect example of this is Black Ops. All presidents have ordered Black Ops at sometime during their time. The public does not hear of about 95% of the Black Ops because they are classified as they should be. Trumps got into hot water because he has no filters. Probably one of the reasons so many people like him, anyway, Trump does stuff and then talks about it and that causes issues. Most presidents do stuff and you never hear about it so no one knows. If Trump would just keep his mouth shut he would not be in so much hot water.

Do I think Trump was wrong on 1/6? Yes but I also think other presidents have done a lot worse but they just did not get caught. For better or worse Trump is going to do what he wants and do it in the open. It is easy to paint Trump as a bad POTUS, I know I have done it myself, but we also need to realize he is not the only one who has done things that I do not agree with and he sure is not going to be the last one either.

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
Let not kid ourselves to think that Trump was the only one to do stuff illegal. All presidents either Dem or Rep have done stuff that would be considered illegal in any context except as POTUS. That is why the SC clarified that POTUS has immunity from official acts. It has to be that way. The perfect example of this is Black Ops. All presidents have ordered Black Ops at sometime during their time. The public does not hear of about 95% of the Black Ops because they are classified as they should be. Trumps got into hot water because he has no filters. Probably one of the reasons so many people like him, anyway, Trump does stuff and then talks about it and that causes issues. Most presidents do stuff and you never hear about it so no one knows. If Trump would just keep his mouth shut he would not be in so much hot water.

Do I think Trump was wrong on 1/6? Yes but I also think other presidents have done a lot worse but they just did not get caught. For better or worse Trump is going to do what he wants and do it in the open. It is easy to paint Trump as a bad POTUS, I know I have done it myself, but we also need to realize he is not the only one who has done things that I do not agree with and he sure is not going to be the last one either.

Credit where credit due.

True story!

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
Let not kid ourselves to think that Trump was the only one to do stuff illegal. All presidents either Dem or Rep have done stuff that would be considered illegal in any context except as POTUS. That is why the SC clarified that POTUS has immunity from official acts. It has to be that way. The perfect example of this is Black Ops. All presidents have ordered Black Ops at sometime during their time. The public does not hear of about 95% of the Black Ops because they are classified as they should be. Trumps got into hot water because he has no filters. Probably one of the reasons so many people like him, anyway, Trump does stuff and then talks about it and that causes issues. Most presidents do stuff and you never hear about it so no one knows. If Trump would just keep his mouth shut he would not be in so much hot water.

Do I think Trump was wrong on 1/6? Yes but I also think other presidents have done a lot worse but they just did not get caught. For better or worse Trump is going to do what he wants and do it in the open. It is easy to paint Trump as a bad POTUS, I know I have done it myself, but we also need to realize he is not the only one who has done things that I do not agree with and he sure is not going to be the last one either.

"They did it too!" or "They did worse!" should never be an excuse.

quote:

The damage done to our fundamental intitutions was not caused by Trump.

Bullshit. Right out of Goebbel's playbook, and you know it.