1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

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

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by RESINator, Jan 6, 2021.

  1. Commodore

    Commodore Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,101
    Likes Received:
    9,679
    DOJ has been lying in indictments that Kamala/Pence were at the Capital on Jan 6 (making it a "restricted area" for legal purposes).

     
  2. bobrek

    bobrek Politics belong in the D & D
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 1999
    Messages:
    34,882
    Likes Received:
    23,892
    Pence was at the Capitol.
     
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  3. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    47,200
    Likes Received:
    44,301
    Another maga on a Capital tour, simply engaging in political discourse...


    New video shows alleged Jan. 6 Capitol rioters threatening Pence
    https://news.yahoo.com/new-video-jan-6-capitol-riot-pence-threat-drag-through-streets-195249884.html


     
    FranchiseBlade and deb4rockets like this.
  4. deb4rockets

    deb4rockets Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    13,142
    Likes Received:
    17,388
    T_Man, RayRay10, VooDooPope and 3 others like this.
  5. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    21,507
    Likes Received:
    15,715
    Ummm… Mike Pence is literally on camera the entire time at the Capital during January 6. I don’t know why you would make such a stupid fake outrage claim.

    Since Kamala was still a Senator she was there too but in the office area it has been reported prior.
     
  6. IBTL

    IBTL Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,418
    Likes Received:
    7,790
    mikol13, B-Bob and FranchiseBlade like this.
  7. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    47,200
    Likes Received:
    44,301
    Well, you see, she wasn't president at the time, so she wasn't above the law...

     
  8. Jugdish

    Jugdish Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,827
    Likes Received:
    7,294
    Not Mother?

    [​IMG]
     
    mikol13 and Colt45 like this.
  9. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    47,200
    Likes Received:
    44,301
    Seeing lots of the more out there from trump watchers about former Overstock CEO patrick byrne. His history is so bizarre that if you saw it in a movie you wouldn't believe it. He is linked to former trump lawyer sydney powell. He is rumored to have been connected with the draft executive order and advised trump to order the seizure of voting machines in December. And craziest of all, he was liked romantically with russian spy maria butina (which led to him stepping down as CEO).

    [​IMG]
     
    Deckard, deb4rockets and B-Bob like this.
  10. txtony

    txtony Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    16,817
    Likes Received:
    12,588
    If they wanted to, they could. I read that they are extremely meticulous about record keeping and tracking down missing documents. That’s probably how they tracked down top secret, classified, and other papers Trump took.
     
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  11. edwardc

    edwardc Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    8,489
    Likes Received:
    5,269
  12. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    26,729
    Likes Received:
    12,231

     
    Rashmon, Deckard and B-Bob like this.
  13. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    47,200
    Likes Received:
    44,301
  14. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    47,200
    Likes Received:
    44,301
    "but, but her phones"

     
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  15. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    53,376
    Likes Received:
    30,996
    Wow. He's definitely overstocked with something. Sanity ain't one of them.
     
  16. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    47,200
    Likes Received:
    44,301
  17. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    47,200
    Likes Received:
    44,301
    Constantly lying, always changing his story and blaming others…

     
  18. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Trust the process
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    55,794
    Likes Received:
    80,187
    Turley

    'What-aboutism' — Ruling against Trump leaves more questions than answers on free speech

    https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...inst-trump-leaves-more-questions-than-answers

    excerpt:

    However, it is the free speech issue that is most concerning. My concern is not based on any agreement with Trump's view of the election or Congress’s certification of it; I criticized his speech as he gave it and later called for Congress to censure him; nevertheless, his remarks fall well short of the high standard set for criminal or civil liability for speech.

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected such liability despite the use of inflammatory or even violent words.

    In 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that even a Ku Klux Klan leader calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” In Hess v. Indiana, the court rejected the prosecution of a protester declaring an intention to take over the streets because “at worst, (the words) amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” In a third case, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the court overturned a judgment against the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People after one of its officials promised to break the necks of opponents.

    Although Trump pumped up his Jan. 6 supporters with allegations of election fraud and calls to "fight like hell," Judge Mehta acknowledged that Trump also told the crowd that “everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” His comments were consistent with a protest in saying that “we are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

    In fairness to the court, it is merely saying that the case’s plaintiffs could possibly prove a conspiracy between Trump and some Jan. 6 groups. But he cites little support for such a conspiracy beyond facts like Trump’s earlier controversial statement in a debate that the Proud Boys should “stand back and stand by.” The court's careful, meticulous analysis on the earlier claims seems to break down over Trump’s status; it struggles to ignore the clear weight of prior case law and countervailing interpretations of Trump’s words.

    Despite a lengthy, detailed discussion of issues like presidential immunity, Mehta becomes more curt and cursory over Trump's constitutional claims. When Trump's lawyers said his language was largely indistinguishable from that of many Democrats like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Mehta chided them for playing "a game of what-aboutism."

    That "what-aboutism," however, is precisely the point. The selective imposition of liability for speech is the very thing that the First Amendment is designed to prevent.

    As rioting raged in Brooklyn Center, Minn. and nationwide in 2020, Congresswoman Waters went to Minnesota and told protesters there that they “gotta stay on the street” and “get more confrontational.” Others have used language very similar to Trump’s in declaring elections to be invalid (including Hillary Clinton calling Trump an "illegitimate president") or urging supporters to "fight" or "battle" against Republicans; Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) once said, "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives.”

    All of those statements arguably were reckless but clearly protected speech.

    Free speech demands bright lines. While this is a "one-of-a-kind case," Trump's comments were hardly unique. And Judge Mehta does not clearly establish why Giuliani’s "trial by combat" remark or Brooks’ “taking names and kicking ass" exhortation are not calls for imminent violence or lawlessness — but Trump’s “fight like hell” would be.

    With three of the four speakers now dismissed from the case, only Trump remains. Along with him remains the most looming question: whether the Jan. 6 speech, which was central to his impeachment, was protected under the Constitution. If Trump prevails on appeal, he may claim a degree of vindication thanks to some of his fiercest opponents.

    What the court dismisses as "a game of what-aboutism" is all about free speech.
    more at the link
     
  19. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Trust the process
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    55,794
    Likes Received:
    80,187
    Volokh

    Court in Civil Case Holds Trump's Jan. 6 Speech Could Be Constitutionally Unprotected Incitement
    But the claims against Donald J. Trump, Jr. and Rudy Giuliani are dismissed.

    https://reason.com/volokh/2022/02/1...d-be-constitutionally-unprotected-incitement/

    excerpt:

    Here's my general thinking: The Court has indeed held that incitement is constitutionally unprotected, and a speech to a large group of people assembled in a place where they can do harm is indeed the kind of thing that could potentially satisfy the "imminence" element of incitement. (Again, recall, that the exception covers speech that "is [1] directed [i.e., intended] to inciting or producing [2] imminent lawless action and is [3] likely to incite or produce such action.")

    As to intent, I'm skeptical that Trump specifically intended to get members of the audience to act criminally, and not just to engage in lawful protest, simply because such criminal action was clearly politically and practically bad for Trump. There was no real chance, I think, that a criminal attack would get the members of Congress to go along with Trump—members of Congress may be cowed by the threat of political retaliation (indeed, in some situations they are supposed to be), but I very much doubt that they would be cowed by even the threat of violence.

    This having been said, there may be enough evidence to bring the questions of intent and especially likelihood before a jury, especially if the standard is preponderance of the evidence, as it usually is in civil cases (though note that sometimes the civil standard is elevated to clear and convincing evidence, as with the knowledge/recklessness prong in public official libel cases).

    But the bigger point is beyond Trump, I think. As we saw in the twelve months ending with January 6, 2021, political violence is hardly unique to one particular political dispute or one particular side. And any standard for upholding civil liability for such speech (if it's ultimately accepted on appeal) will surely be applied far beyond this case, especially since nothing in the plaintiffs' theory is limited to speech by the President, or speech about elections, or speech that leads to an attack on the Capitol as such, or for that matter speech that stems from erroneous factual claims as opposed to correct factual claims or for that matter expressions of opinion. (The courts' decision, after all, deals with the incitement exception and not the libel exception.)

    Say, for instance, that many in the public are deeply upset about what they perceive (rightly or wrongly) as a vast and disproportionate number of police murders of unarmed people of a particular racial group—or for that matter a wide range of other perceived injustice, whether related to racism, economic fairness, labor union rights, environmentalism, or what have you. Movement leaders (whether elected officials or otherwise) echo these sentiments, and indeed help urge these sentiments.

    Many of these people gather for a rally, at which a movement leader is speaking. Most of the audience have no violent or otherwise illegal intentions, but some (as in so many movements) do, and the leader, not being an idiot, knows that. The leader speaks for a long time about all the grievances that the audience and he share, and includes statements such as

    [W]e fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have [justice / fairness / a planet] anymore

    and

    [W]e're going to try to and give [elected officials / police reformers / etc.] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

    He then exhorts the rally-goers to march to City Hall, or a police station, or some oil company headquarters. Unsurprisingly, some of the people then move to on to break into the building, or vandalize it, or set fire to it, or to shoot at police officers protecting it.

    Perhaps it's good if those physically or emotionally injured in the resulting illegal conduct could sue the movement leader for his speech (or perhaps even if prosecutors could prosecute him). Or perhaps it's bad. But my prediction is that the results that apply to Trump will quickly be applied to lots of other speakers in contexts where some attendees at a political rally act illegally.
    more at the link
     
  20. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    43,237
    Likes Received:
    27,070
    The problem is that Trump isn't just a private citizen but is also the President of the United States. As such his role in this incident is unique. As a private citizen he is entitled to say what he wants. As President it is understood that he wields much great power. Trump's defense from lawsuit has been that he was acting in his role as President so if that is his claim then he's already acknowledging that his role is different than that of a private citizen.

    Finally this is a civil case and not a criminal case so the standards are different.
     
    txtony, Blatz, T_Man and 1 other person like this.

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now