Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

Same sources. You have Trump and his allies installing loyalists on election boards who can help them get past the barriers they hit last time.

 

Need to be rooted out.

DD

 

When you work so hard to put puppet electors in place you are becoming a party not so different than the fascist/dictator regimes. There is nothing American about a corrupt and puppet leader run country. You might as well be living in Russia or North Korea if you want that type government.

 

yeah, I don't see that as a huge threat. we survived Trump the first time; a second time around would signify a catastrophic failure on the part of the Democrats. I'm not even sure I see Trump running in 2024, but I guess time will tell

 

How would Republicans being successful in corrupting an election be the Democrats fault?

 

because the Repubs are so far behind right now only a catastrophic screwup could mess that up. something along the lines of a Hillary Clinton candidacy. I guess if Kamala Harris runs that might do it.

 

I don't think we're speaking about the same thing here. There are always states where the vote will be close, if the election systems of those states are compromised such that a candidate can manipulate the results to get a victory, the whole entire system is broken.

Growing evidence that this effort to corrupt local election systems is severe and did not stop after 2020, in fact it has intensified.

 

All three were Antifa, FBI undercover agents, and crisis actors.

 

yeah, I can see where that might be a different issue. Also haven't followed that closely--but if it's anything like the Georgia law that supposedly was going to eviscerate local elections, and then it turned out it didn't, then I think the Republic will turn out okay in the end

 

Im still wondering why Ted Cruz and Ken Paxton haven't been barred from practicing law. Is the lawyers' oath just words on paper that mean nothing? They knew they were lying about the election results. They intentionally misled their followers and demanded countless recounts in a deliberate well planned coup. Their plan didn't work, but they are as guilty as Trump for the parts they played leading up to Jan 6th.

 

You can look at 2020 as a trial run. American democracy survived. In a healthy democracy, we would shut that down, prosecute those responsible and prevent another attempt.

So far, we have done very little. American democracy is more vulnerable to failing today than in 2020. The peaceful and orderly transfer of power is dependent on people in power doing the right thing and the public supporting those people to be in power. We are moved further away from that. We now have more people in power willing to not do the right thing. We have new laws that enable States to do the wrong thing easier than it was in 2020. We have a party that has more mistrust of the election system today than it was in 2020 (unless they win). We have a public that has more mistrust of the election system today than in 2020. By 2023, I think many of these will get worse if Republicans take the House, the Senate, and many of the positions in the counties and states that deal with local elections.

We still might survive another attempt in 2022, 2024, and so on. But why play with fire? American democracy has a single point of failure - once it fails, it's done for. As long as the risk stays, American Democracy WILL eventually fail - it's just a matter of time. So, why do you allow the risk to stay? That's the question that I'm most interested in hearing an answer to from those who (not the MAGA crowd) have an indifferent attitude toward all of this. It's hard to get an honest answer except when you talk to them in private.

 

Less worried about voting laws and more concerned with putting loyalists in key positions that oversee the election.

 

not sure I understand your comment

 

Agreed. Because of what happened with the 2020 election there is significant percentage of Americans who will never again trust the vote unless their candidates win.

There are also numerous politicians who will try to not accept any results unless they win, and even worse, politicians, who will put people in power that will attempt to not allow votes that are against the candidates they support. It's already happening.

Democracy in the United States has been seriously wounded but isn't dead.

One of the ways to treat that wound is to prosecute those that inflicted it, and punish them.

 

and this is happening, no?

 

We have to wait and see. When Trump's team that knew they were doing something illegal are prosecuted that might help.

I don't think anything is happening to those in New Mexico.

 

pluses and minuses to prosecuting Trump. Good piece here:

Prosecute Trump? Put Yourself in Merrick Garland’s Shoes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/20/opinion/trump-merrick-garland-january-6-committee.html

 

I'm behind a pay wall on the Times Story.

I don't know the issues they put out in respect to Prosecuting Trump.

I am aware of some. I know that it could spark riots, make others feel more ostracized and left out of our system, many will be convinced it's purely partisan and will use that as an excuse to not support it.

But some of those concerns are a blessing in disguise.

Let it bring out those that would riot and use violence. We need to shine a light on them and hold them accountable.

Its time to clean house. They deeply damaged our democracy and are trying to put into place ways to further discount votes of citizens.

These people planned, encouraged, and lead by Trump, tried to use violence to throw out the results of a free and fair election. They have shown no remorse and, in fact, use it as a litmus test for acceptance. They lost their seat at the table when that happened.

Ideally Republicans would have an internal movement to clean house and lead the prosecutions. That would be unifying rather than divisive, but it won't happen. So the nation needs to step up and protect its democracy from further damage.

The time for half-measures is over.

Even if Trump isn't prosecuted, those around him who participated and lead the plans and knowingly initiated illegal measures, especially Eastman need to be prosecuted.

 

Ann Althouse excerpts Goldsmith's three main points:

"To indict Mr. Trump for these and other acts, Mr. Garland must make three decisions, each more difficult than the previous, and none of which has an obvious answer...."
by noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse)

Writes lawprof Jack Goldsmith (in the NYT):

First, he must determine whether the decision to indict Mr. Trump is his to make. If Mr. Garland decides that a criminal investigation of Mr. Trump is warranted, Justice Department regulations require him to appoint a special counsel if the investigation presents a conflict of interest for the department and if Mr. Garland believes such an appointment would be in the public interest....

If Mr. Garland opens a Trump investigation and keeps the case... the second issue is whether ... Mr. Trump’s acts constitute a federal offense and “the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.”... The two most frequently mentioned crimes Mr. Trump may have committed are the corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding (the Jan. 6 vote count) and conspiracy to defraud the United States (in working to overturn election results). Many have noted that Mr. Trump can plausibly defend these charges by arguing that he lacked criminal intent because he truly believed that massive voter fraud had taken place. Mr. Trump would also claim that key elements of his supposedly criminal actions — his interpretations of the law, his pressure on Mr. Pence, his delay in responding to the Capitol breach and more — were exercises of his constitutional prerogatives as chief executive....

If Mr. Garland concludes that Mr. Trump has committed convictable crimes, he would face the third and hardest decision: whether the national interest would be served by prosecuting Mr. Trump.... Indicting a past and possible future political adversary of the current president would be a cataclysmic event from which the nation would not soon recover. It would be seen by many as politicized retribution. The prosecution would take many years to conclude; would last through, and deeply impact, the next election; and would leave Mr. Trump’s ultimate fate to the next administration, which could be headed by Mr. Trump....
​

hope that's helpful

​

 

I am saying that Trump & Co is putting people in the right positions that can rule "any ballots here are invalid" or "no ballots will be counted after x time" in order to give their candidate an advantage. Or they could simply refuse to certify a result, or move to have the legislature interfere and declare the election fraudulent and thereby allow another method of allocating electoral votes.

This is what they learned from 2020.