How it's going—Proud Boys edition

[Lewkowski]

He'd have voted for Hitler in a heartbeat.

Like I'd ever vote for a socialist

[Ominous Gamer]

What a difference 24 hours can make

[Hazir]

Like I'd ever vote for a socialist

Like you know what a socialist is.

[Aimless]

I think it'll be very interesting to see how the mature, sophisticated and rational "power of our institutions" dudes react to the coming year's revelations about just how close the US actually came to a bloody coup. If I were in govt., I would be very ambivalent about letting the public find out. It would irreparably damage the framework of shared delusions on which democracies are built.

Like I'd ever vote for a socialist

Hew Lewk, if a zinger is based on a line of reasoning that makes you think North Korea is a democratic republic, it might be a really dumb zinger that you might want to reconsider.

[Aimless]

Researchers are having a blast with this real-world, realtime exercise in digital accountability.

Twitter Link

Fascinating thread.

[RandBlade]

Twitter Link

Does that include the politicians like Trump, Cruz and Hawley that whipped them up and sent them there?

[Lewkowski]

Twitter Link

Does that include the politicians like Trump, Cruz and Hawley that whipped them up and sent them there?

Of course not, don't be an anti-speech moron. That would be akin to saying "This person is bad" and then that person gets attacked and blaming the person who said this person is bad. Unless they literally told people to storm congress than the idea that they would be criminally responsible for the actions is asinine.

[Hazir]

Of course not, don't be an anti-speech moron. That would be akin to saying "This person is bad" and then that person gets attacked and blaming the person who said this person is bad. Unless they literally told people to storm congress than the idea that they would be criminally responsible for the actions is asinine.

They were part of the conspiracy to deligimize the election of President elect Biden. Which to their best knowledge had been duly elected. This given that in two months they had failed to produce any evidence to the contrary. There is freedom of expression in the United States, not freedom of sedition.

Like the mob that attacked Congress, their ring leaders should be dragged in front of court as the traitors they are.

They deserve to be hanged.

[Hazir]

it begins

One has to wonder what made them forget 'Traitor' in the description of his character.

[Lewkowski]

They were part of the conspiracy to deligimize the election of President elect Biden. Which to their best knowledge had been duly elected. This given that in two months they had failed to produce any evidence to the contrary. There is freedom of expression in the United States, not freedom of sedition.

Like the mob that attacked Congress, their ring leaders should be dragged in front of court as the traitors they are.

They deserve to be hanged.

1. You don't know what exactly they believed, maybe they do believe there was sufficient fraud to change the outcome of the election.

2. The constitution gives the powers to select electors to the state legislature, overthrowing the will of the people is pretty fucking awful, however it would be legal for the states to present a different slate of electors than the winning candidate who received them is not sedition. As I understand the argument made by some House/Senate is that they wanted to void the current group and have the state legislators re-select. I disagree that this would be constitutional *even with absolute proof of voter fraud occurring* however again, it is not sedition to try to vote that way. Many things senators vote for are blatantly unconstitutional.

Rand Paul though had the right take:

"The vote today is not a protest; the vote today is literally to overturn the election! Voting to overturn state-certified elections would be the opposite of what states’ rights Republicans have always advocated for. This would doom the electoral college forever. It was never intended by our founders that Congress have the power to overturn state-certified elections. My oath to the Constitution doesn’t allow me to disobey the law. I cannot vote to overturn the verdict of the states."

[Hazir]

1. You don't know what exactly they believed, maybe they do believe there was sufficient fraud to change the outcome of the election.

2. The constitution gives the powers to select electors to the state legislature, overthrowing the will of the people is pretty fucking awful, however it would be legal for the states to present a different slate of electors than the winning candidate who received them is not sedition. As I understand the argument made by some House/Senate is that they wanted to void the current group and have the state legislators re-select. I disagree that this would be constitutional *even with absolute proof of voter fraud occurring* however again, it is not sedition to try to vote that way. Many things senators vote for are blatantly unconstitutional.

Rand Paul though had the right take:

"The vote today is not a protest; the vote today is literally to overturn the election! Voting to overturn state-certified elections would be the opposite of what states’ rights Republicans have always advocated for. This would doom the electoral college forever. It was never intended by our founders that Congress have the power to overturn state-certified elections. My oath to the Constitution doesn’t allow me to disobey the law. I cannot vote to overturn the verdict of the states."

1. Do they or did they produce during the last 2 montsh any evidence to support their doubts? They didn't, which didn't stop them from litigation by the way.
2. The process is at no point intended to result in anything different than the duly elected person to come out of it as the President elect. However, this point is moot as Congress was under attack from people who denied the validity of the legal process and certain members of the Senate and House encouraged them by giving the claims of illegality validity while they had not produced any, not even the tiniest bit of evidence, to support the idea that the legal process wasn't valid. Because of the situation under which this behavior was expressed what could have been merely free speech under normal circumstances became sedicious behavior.

The separation of powers between states and federal government has no relevance to the question who is culpable for what amounted to an attack on Congress in the execution of it's constitutional role. But since you dragged it in; it merely shows that elected officials in the federal government (White House, Senate and House) had no business inciting a mob in order to stop the certification by Congress of the results as reported by the states.

The traitors who tried to interfere should be punished. I think for what they did hanging would be an appropriate punishment. A mere 10 year prison sentence for defiling a government building would make a mockery of the entire system of justice and government in the USA.

FYI when I say 'they should be hanged' I am not using hyperbole. I literally think these people deserve to be hanged.

[Aimless]

Good read, cops' perspectives on the attack:

Twitter Link

A lot of people who should never be allowed to work in their field again:

Twitter Link

[Hazir]

Good read, cops' perspectives on the attack:

Twitter Link

A lot of people who should never be allowed to work in their field again:

Twitter Link

The punishment for treason and sedition is not being fired from your job.

[Aimless]

I don't think you'd be able to prove treason and sedition for those robocall dumbasses, but you can probably make sure they have shitty lives from here on out.

[Lewkowski]

The separation of powers between states and federal government has no relevance to the question who is culpable for what amounted to an attack on Congress in the execution of it's constitutional role. But since you dragged it in; it merely shows that elected officials in the federal government (White House, Senate and House) had no business inciting a mob in order to stop the certification by Congress of the results as reported by the states.

.

Without citing a specific example define how incitement should be determined and when it should be punished. Be broad but specific because I'm curious as to how many other examples would fit in your definition when we put them to the test.

[GGT]

I agree, this wasn't planned by him. He's just a moron who never stopped to think about what he was actually saying. He got caught up in the moment while feeding his megalomania and accidentally'd a whole insurrection. It was manslaughter, not murder.

That's the excuse Republicans gave during the first Impeachment -- that he's too stupid and incompetent to have colluded with Russians to influence the 2016 election. They were also wrong when they said he'd "learned a lesson" about the limits of Executive powers and/or Abuse of Office. Or maybe he learned the *wrong* lesson when he was acquitted by the Senate, and felt emboldened, untouchable, and above the law?

When are we allowed to start worrying about a future competent version of Trump?

That started in 2016 when Trump got elected! Don't forget that over 70 million people voted for Trump a second time; he actually got more votes this time around. And the RNC still elected Trump as their Party Leader and fought for his re-election knowing full well he's a pathological lying narcissistic grifting criminal.

Trump is just a symptom of much deeper problems in American society and politics. But the GOP is especially FUBAR with guys like Cruz and Hawley auditioning to be the next Dear Leader in 2024. The audience will still be there, ready and willing to absorb all the delusional disinformation and hateful propaganda they spew on their way to power. That's what makes it so frightening....

[GGT]

1. You don't know what exactly they believed, maybe they do believe there was sufficient fraud to change the outcome of the election.

It doesn't matter what they "believe" but what evidence they brought to court (ie, nothing). Even Giuliani admitted their law suits weren't about fraud -- because lying in court is perjury. This was classic tail-wags-dog, insinuating crimes without proof, just to create mistrust about the election process because they didn't like the results. They exploited their base by lying to them, and used The Big Lie to raise money.

2. The constitution gives the powers to select electors to the state legislature, overthrowing the will of the people is pretty fucking awful, however it would be legal for the states to present a different slate of electors than the winning candidate who received them is not sedition. As I understand the argument made by some House/Senate is that they wanted to void the current group and have the state legislators re-select. I disagree that this would be constitutional *even with absolute proof of voter fraud occurring* however again, it is not sedition to try to vote that way. Many things senators vote for are blatantly unconstitutional.

Rand Paul though had the right take:

"The vote today is not a protest; the vote today is literally to overturn the election! Voting to overturn state-certified elections would be the opposite of what states’ rights Republicans have always advocated for. This would doom the electoral college forever. It was never intended by our founders that Congress have the power to overturn state-certified elections. My oath to the Constitution doesn’t allow me to disobey the law. I cannot vote to overturn the verdict of the states."

You should cite sources, even when you quote your hero Rand Paul. But if you agree with Paul that the *intent* was to overturn the election by ignoring states' election laws (in favor of a sitting president), and *interfering with the lawful process of certifying electoral college votes*, that sounds like sedition:

Current federal criminal code defines “seditious conspiracy” as an effort by two or more people “to conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.”

That wording may emphasize force. But Geoffrey R. Stone, a legal scholar at the University of Chicago and the author of “Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime, From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terror,” said that, historically, sedition has been centrally a matter of speech.
“Normally, it refers to speech that advocates action or beliefs that are designed to overthrow or undermine the lawful processes of government,” he said. “Actions like burning down a building, or assassinating someone — those are separate crimes.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/a...n-charges.html

[Lewkowski]

No that sounds like a different constitutional perspective. Is attempting to pass a law or hold a vote that violates the constitution an act of sedition?

[Hazir]

No that sounds like a different constitutional perspective. Is attempting to pass a law or hold a vote that violates the constitution an act of sedition?

The question is not relevant to the situation. It is not what was going on. There is no type of attack on Congress in the execution of its constitutional duties that is not seditious. Your red herrings will not confuse anyone.

Why do you defend treason?

[GGT]

No that sounds like a different constitutional perspective. Is attempting to pass a law or hold a vote that violates the constitution an act of sedition?

Trying to pause the lawfully and constitutionally-mandated process of certifying states' Electoral College votes isn't the problem -- that might just be political trolls exploiting process & procedure to get attention. It's their intent to change the election results that's seditious.

But since intent is hard to prove...well, the legal paradox is clearly open for exploitation by liars, scammers, and grifters like Trump and ReTrumplicans.

[Lewkowski]

The question is not relevant to the situation. It is not what was going on. There is no type of attack on Congress in the execution of its constitutional duties that is not seditious. Your red herrings will not confuse anyone.

Why do you defend treason?

What do you mean "no type of attack on Congress" you do realize the senators and house members have all universally condemned the rioting that day, right?

[GGT]

So...Lewk agrees that the rioters, and anyone who riled them up, including Trump, was committing sedition. Good to know.

[Aimless]

Thread

Twitter Link

this officer may have kept the attackers away from the senate

[Aimless]

Trying to overturn an election by encouraging violent, murderous insurrectionists—who you know seek to harm legislators and other officials—to bear down on the seat of your govt, through the use of lies and incendiary rhetoric, is seditious. It is also completely different from regular politics. The only way you can believe otherwise is if you're a worthless shit-eating moron with your head stuck up your ass.

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

FBI going to great lengths to disguise their honeytrap :0

[Aimless]

Not the same Alamo, but perhaps even more dangerous.

Twitter Link

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

[RandBlade]

Not the same Alamo, but perhaps even more dangerous.

Twitter Link

I don't understand that. Trump's blown his opportunity for violence now, whatever happens next will be impotent and tragic.

On Wednesday Trump had ensured that minimal Policing was there as part of his attempted coup. The relevant authorities won't allow him to do that again. How many FBI agents are going to be in Alamo on Tuesday?

[Aimless]

Fucked-up even by the standards of this idiot:





Gun-crazy dimwitted congresswoman praises murderous Capitol attackers and live-tweets about the Speaker, whom the murderous attackers are looking for.

[Aimless]

Companies are hitting the GOP where it hurts, but I dunno if it'll hurt much or for very long

Twitter Link