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

is there actually any evidence for that? and don't those people (regardless of who "put them in the right positions") have to follow election rules, laws, and regulations that are in place--again, regardless of who put them in the right positions? There's a lot of "could" speculation in what you state above

 

Thanks for the recap. It is definitely helpful.

1. On the conflict of interest point, I don't believe so, but even if, there are ways around that with a special prosecutor, etc.
2. The hearings have shown that Trump absolutely 100% knew there was no massive voter fraud. He was told repeatedly by his attorneys, his AG, and others in his circle. He decided to pursue the claim anyway. That is the easiest of the three points to overcome.
3. It is absolutely in the nation's interest to help preserve it's democracy. Not only is pursuing the charges in the nation's interest, it may be a necessity.

 

Plenty of evidence from 2020 where Republican elected officials were pressured to do these things and refused. So replace them with loyalists. It is legal in many cases as the election officials have leeway. Plus laws are being passed that allow state legislatures to have more control over election results.

 

yep. trying to be a good citizen in light of Clutch's repeated requests not to post full articles.

on the third point, though, I'll add the full section to cover what Goldsmith has to say on the question. I don't think it's an easy issue:

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. This is not a question that lawyerly analysis alone can resolve. It is a judgment call about the nature, and fate, of our democracy.

A failure to indict Mr. Trump in these circumstances would imply that a president — who cannot be indicted while in office — is literally above the law, in defiance of the very notion of constitutional government. It would encourage lawlessness by future presidents, none more so than Mr. Trump should he win the next election. By contrast, the rule of law would be vindicated by a Trump conviction. And it might be enhanced by a full judicial airing of Mr. Trump’s possible crimes in office, even if it ultimately fails.

And yet Mr. Garland cannot be sanguine that a Trump prosecution would promote national reconciliation or enhance confidence in American justice. 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.

independence and integrity” even if he prosecutes Mr. Trump in the service of those norms. And if the prosecution fails, many will conclude that the country and the rule of law suffered tremendous pain for naught.

Mr. Garland’s decisions will be deeply controversial and have consequences beyond his lifetime. It is easy to understand, contrary to his many critics, why he is gathering as much information as possible — including what has emerged from the Jan. 6 committee and the prosecution of the higher-ups involved in the Capitol breach — before making these momentous judgments.
​

so again, I'm not so sure it's an easy call. This situation resembles other politically fraught contexts, such as Ford's pardon of Nixon, or going further back, Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction. The Lincoln comparison is more apt than it might appear: there was such desire for revenge after the Civil War, but he counseled against it. I sense much of the anti-Trump spirit is also at least partly motivated by vengeance and a desire to punish, rather than to "heal."

 

well, again, laws are passed all the time. There are good laws and there are crappy laws. That's where the attention should be focused I think

 

Two words: Georgia & Texas. Arizona not far behind.

 

I looked into the Georgia stuff, there didn’t seem to be anything there

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/e...tion-into-question/ar-AAYB264?ocid=uxbndlbing

Get enough of these guys and you will lose the right to certify the election......this guy went with his "gut and intuition" regarding election fraud , this is how it starts, put a few more people like this on his side and the voice of the people is silenced. Hell, you don't have to worry about having the votes, just put the right people in power to oversee the election and you can decide who wins, no matter what the people vote on. Thank goodness you had the right folks on the GOP do the right thing in 2020 but its laid the groundwork on what can happen.

 

from the link it sounds like the Election Commission followed the law:

“We honestly don’t have a choice,” Commission Chairwoman Vickie Marquardt said before the vote, citing the potential for fines and removal from office if the panel ignored an order from the state Supreme Court to certify the primary results.

***
“I am relieved that the Otero County Commission finally did the right thing and followed their duty under New Mexico law to certify the free and fair results of the 2022 Primary Election,” Oliver said in a statement. “The voters of Otero County and the candidates who duly won their primaries can now rest assured that their voices have been heard and the General Election can proceed as planned.”
​

sounds like the system worked

 

This is why the 1/6 commission hammered home two points in the first two sessions. Trump was told over and over that there was no election fraud and there is no evidence of voter fraud. There is a point at which you can't claim to be ignorant of the facts. Willful blindness isn't a valid defense - https://www.nacdl.org/Content/WillfulBlindness.

 

I understand the difficulties of national interest.

But I look at it with a pros and cons list.

Pros - shows nobody is above the law, if crimes were committed let's hold people accountable. May set an example protecting the integrity of future elections, shows that trying to illegally steal an election has consequences, and the by-product encouraging leaders to work for more than just their base, reduces the chance for further division next election when whoever loses can repeat Trump's big lie and make it 2.0 versión. It will also reduce the instances of politicians thriving and demanding adhering to baseless conspiracy theories.

Cons - Will further alienate and ostracized a sizeable percentage of the nation that felt ignored and like their issues were never taken seriously. It could encourage more rioting and violence (which I believe is an actually an ugly positive).

To me the positives far outweigh the negatives. There is little doubt that there will be many ugly moments should Trump be prosecuted. It's just that I feel we've reached the stage where the nation needs to dive into the ugly moments in order to emerge from the other side and start rebuilding the damage done to our nation and the democracy.

I would be willing after a year or so Trump being pardoned if he demonstrated contrition, though that seems highly unlikely.

 

I agree, no one is above the law and if this gets swept under the rug the next President might do even worse. The line in the sand has moved and if we don't act I am afraid what will become of our free elections. The old saying that this will get worse before it gets better fully applies here, I could see some nut case trying to start a riot and things could get ugly, it would pit the red vs blue like never before and would divide this country even further, if that's possible. In my head I imagine a Jack Nicholson type of scenario if trump ever took the stand.....I don't think he could help himself, he would have to prove his point, facts be damned. I think the biggest obstacle is timing, can they do it before the big red wave comes crashing down on our heads and they block any and all things the dems want to do.

 

Laws matter when a court says you can't do this because the law says x. So now they change the law so they can do y. It's highly concerning to me at least.

 

seems to me that's how law-making works

 

Right, so in this case - well, the Republican state legislature can't interfere with an election and just decide to through out the results because that's against the law, so let's change the law so they can!

That's exactly how our democracy is meant to function best.

 

in New York we have a Democratic-majority state legislature that routinely tramples on the rights of people through its law-making. But that's what having a majority in a state legislature can lead to.

 

I can understand your distaste for living under a state gov't you disagree with, I am in the same boat.

The difference is, I'm additionally not comfortable with the US becoming a banana republic.

 

I actually was worried about riots if Trump didnt win in 16. Also was in DC during the inauguration and man...you could cut the tension with a knife. It reminded me of being in Belfast.

So many people are ride or die towards Trump...as easy as it is to blame the Left the real issue is the GOP never represented their base while still pushing them rightward.

 

Prosecution and punishment for those responsible is a start. It discourages others from trying. But now that we understand where some of the holes are, we should cover them up. We need election laws to safeguard American democracy. For nearly 250 years, we were on an honor system - a system where we expected and until Trump, did get a peaceful and orderly transfer of power because men act honorably. We can't depend on that anymore. We have to beef up our systems to protect them against individuals and parties that are willing to destroy democracy.

 

I read that they just passed an election reforming bill recently. {rolleyes}