Trump Pressures Raffensperger to Commit Fraud

[swansont]

51 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Wouldn't conspiracy imply planning it with them?

Not as far as I know. But if he actively urged them to do it, I would think he’s guilty of sedition itself.

Quote

To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States

He told them to go mess with the vote counting.

[J.C.MacSwell]

25 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I think Trump's actions were criminal as well as dangerously irresponsible. In any nation where rule of law, truth and justice (and fair elections) are held up as their strengths and virtues, those holding relevant offices failing to address this behavior is... dangerously irresponsible. Possibly criminal in turn?

So...you're saying it's okay in the USA then? 😎

[geordief]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

He gave a speech right to them, urging them on, after advertising the rally. How much if a link do you need?

We need to know as much as possible  of what went on .

If there were conversations between  Trump and those who organized this action we need to know this.

I am not saying this is necessary to show culpability if enough is already known to show this.

 

But we still need to know as much as possible about this and ,if some kind of a chain of responsibility  can be shown then this is to everyone's benefit .

We have been told that Trump is like a Mafia boss and never spells things out explicitly but he may have had an off day and shown his hand. 

And ,if others are revealed in the line of command  they may talk for a reduced sentence.

[swansont]

50 minutes ago, geordief said:

We need to know as much as possible  of what went on .

Eventually, sure.

The immediate issue is removing a dangerous man from power. You don’t need to know if there was a hidden conspiracy to commit sedition when he called for sedition in plain sight.

 

 

[geordief]

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

The immediate issue is removing a dangerous man from power

Well,yes.

As to whether that can be achieved I am doubtful ,but I don't claim any expertise to make that judgement.

I am hearing that very few Republicans are  pressuring  him to resign.....

 

And I have heard arguments that impeachment should be used to set a precedent even if chances of success may not be great.

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

You don’t need to know if there was a hidden conspiracy to commit sedition when he called for sedition in plain sight.

This has been one of the more interesting things about people’s feelings regarding Trumps misdeeds. They’re so accustomed to learning of things happening in secret and behind the scenes and recognizing those as being bad that they’re almost blind and oblivious to the misdeeds when they happen in the open and are literally being shown to them on live video. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Not as far as I know. But if he actively urged them to do it, I would think he’s guilty of sedition itself.

He told them to go mess with the vote counting.

Okay thanks. When that's nuisance level (which it could have been) that would seem more of a protest. 

I think the fact that he was asking for more than that, that which could only be accomplished by illegal force, is what makes me feel he's crossed a line and committed a criminal act.

I don't know how the law gets interpreted though.

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

This has been one of the more interesting things about people’s feelings regarding Trumps misdeeds. They’re so accustomed to learning of things happening in secret and behind the scenes and recognizing those as being bad that they’re almost blind and oblivious to the misdeeds when they happen in the open and are literally being shown to them on live video. 

Yes. The press has been guilty of this as well. Case in point - The impeachment that took place was an example of something that happened behind the scenes, and people latched on to it. Other stuff? Meh.

Having said that, Trump’s reshuffling of the Pentagon and not immediately allowing national guard response are things to look at, conspiracy-wise. There are likely things to be found beyond what happened in plain sight.

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Okay thanks. When that's nuisance level (which it could have been) that would seem more of a protest. 

I think the fact that he was asking for more than that, that which could only be accomplished by illegal force, is what makes me feel he's crossed a line and committed a criminal act.

I don't know how the law gets interpreted though.

Well, the only way to mess with the voting was to go into the Capitol building, where the votes were being counted.

[Airbrush]

Every swing state, maybe all states, should BETTER educate their citizens on how their elections are handled and security used to keep them free from fraud.

All Trump needs to do is find a convincing fiction and repeat it over and over, until it sinks into the minds of his followers.  No American president has ever done that, so Americans are not prepared for that Hitler-level of lying.  The cult already WANT to believe him, so it is not hard to fool them.  That is how Trump's mind works.  Since he was spoiled all his life in a bubble of approval, all he needs to do is WANT to believe anything, and he can delude himself into believing it so convincingly that his cult are also convinced.

Edited January 10, 2021 by Airbrush

[Airbrush]

Chronology:

Trump runs for president not because he wants to be president, but as a publicity stunt, as Michael Cohen recalls "only to market himself."

Trump strikes a cord with 1/3 of America that suffered under the tyranny of Obama for 8 long years

Trump unintentionally wins the election and seemed unprepared for the job.  He complained that being president was harder than he thought it would be and decided to take daily "executive time" for several hours every morning to watch TV and tweet

Trump correctly intuits that Biden is his main opponent for 2020.  In desperation to stay in office to avoid prosecutions, Trump attacks his nemesis, Biden

Trump gets impeached for his "perfect" phone call with Ukraine's president, asking for an investigation of Biden

Trump openly extorts the GA secretary of state to "find" just enough votes for him to win.  "Fellas, fellas, all I need are 11,000 votes..."

For weeks Trump asked his fans to show up in DC to a "wild" rally on the 6th of January.  In the rally Trump tells his mob to be strong, and fight, fight, fight, and to go to the Capitol, and he was COMING WITH THEM.  Then he goes home to watch the action on TV with pleasure and amusement

A mob chanted "Hang Mike Pence."  A cop was killed with a fire extinguisher.  Then a woman (from Qanon) charged thru the broken window and was shot in the chest.  This was an internal window with 40 congressmen sheltering on the other side.  She fell backwards so the attackers at the window could see one of their own was just killed, so they stopped.  The cop shooting the woman may have saved the lives of many.

Trump said about the mob, after the attack, that he "loved" them and they were "special."

He was forced to record a video saying the attack was bad and the people should be prosecuted, (or he might get the 25th amendment)

Trump gets impeached by the House a second time, so he will be remembered in history as the only president to be impeached twice

The senate may or may not convict Trump because it takes a supermajority.  Prof. Tribe said the vote in senate requires 2/3 of THOSE PRESENT for the vote.  If 20 Republicans choose to stay home that day, it is possible to convict Trump with less than 17 GOP votes, after January 20th

What major events did I leave out of this brief chronology?

Edited January 10, 2021 by Airbrush

[swansont]

28 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Chronology:

Trump runs for president not because he wants to be president, but as a publicity stunt, as Michael Cohen recalls "only to market himself."

Trump strikes a cord with 1/3 of America that suffered under the tyranny of Obama for 8 long years

Excuse me? Tyranny?

 

 

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

Excuse me? Tyranny?

 

 

I think he is speaking from a Trumpite's perspective.

Edited January 10, 2021 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

48 minutes ago, swansont said:

Excuse me? Tyranny?

 

 

"cruel and oppressive government or rule"

Glad I could help...😁

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

 

Trump gets impeached by the House a second time, so he will be remembered in history as the only president to be impeached twice

The senate may or may not convict Trump because it takes a supermajority.  Prof. Tribe said the vote in senate requires 2/3 of THOSE PRESENT for the vote.  If 20 Republicans choose to stay home that day, it is possible to convict Trump with less than 17 GOP votes, after January 20th

What major events did I leave out of this brief chronology?

I've heard the plan might be for the House to impeach Trump a second time, and that many in the GOP would be on board with that, as long as it is for inciting Wednesday's assault on the Capitol and not a baggage list of complaints.

Also James Clyburn suggested that Pelosi might hang onto the impeachment for Biden's first 100 days in office, This seems like a good idea IMO. Let the new administration be about governing and enough about Trump, at least for now.

[MigL]

Quick question for those who understand American Governance a lot better than I do.

Now that Democrats control the Presidency, House, and Senate ( tie-break ), is it possible for them to change election rules and make elections a federal jurisdiction ( instead of State ), so that elections across the country follow the exact same rules ?
Or is it a Constitutional issue, and requires a super-majority for a Constitutional Amendment.

And while they're at it, address the 'big money' influence, and distribution of voting districts
( if not the whole Electoral College issue, and change to majority of popular vote )

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

Now that Democrats control the Presidency, House, and Senate ( tie-break ), is it possible for them to change election rules and make elections a federal jurisdiction ( instead of State ), so that elections across the country follow the exact same rules ?

Not without a constitutional amendment. Right now, the power to manage elections is given to the states in Article 1 of the constitution.  

The focus will be on expanding voting rights and access, something which is considered a federal issue. 

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

while they're at it, address the 'big money' influence, and distribution of voting districts
( if not the whole Electoral College issue, and change to majority of popular vote )

Except for district lines, these other things are federal. The districts are drawn locally and republicans kept control of most state houses so will be able to further entrench their gerrymandered lines. 

Back to the thread topic, Brad Raffensperger will be on tonight’s episode of 60 Minutes. 
 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-georgia-call-pressured-voter-fraud-evidence/

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

Quick question for those who understand American Governance a lot better than I do.

Now that Democrats control the Presidency, House, and Senate ( tie-break ), is it possible for them to change election rules and make elections a federal jurisdiction ( instead of State ), so that elections across the country follow the exact same rules ?
Or is it a Constitutional issue, and requires a super-majority for a Constitutional Amendment.

And while they're at it, address the 'big money' influence, and distribution of voting districts
( if not the whole Electoral College issue, and change to majority of popular vote )

Of course as you know Canada does not govern by any measure of popular vote. With 3 major parties, in theory we could have the party with the third most votes take the majority of seats, more than the first two together. (but it's much more likely to be a minority government when it's that range of close, with the party with the most seats forming government and requiring the support of one of the other 2)

 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

Now that Democrats control the Presidency, House, and Senate ( tie-break ), is it possible for them to change election rules and make elections a federal jurisdiction ( instead of State ), so that elections across the country follow the exact same rules ?
Or is it a Constitutional issue, and requires a super-majority for a Constitutional Amendment.

The Constitution says that the right to vote shall not be abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude (15th amendment), or sex (19th amendment), or by the presence of a poll tax (24th amendment; only applies to federal elections)

Further, the 14th amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

That was the context of the voting rights act, and presumably there could be laws drawn up to ensure that voters are not disenfranchised on these bases. (race and color, since I don't think that there are precincts where there's much of a gender disparity) - such as ensuring that areas with a large non-white population has the same access as anyone else - and passing laws making sure that requiring voter ID or other limitations do not become a poll tax (be it cost or difficulty in getting access)

Congress could presumably establish a federal standard for voting based on these rights.

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Not without a constitutional amendment. Right now, the power to manage elections is given to the states in Article 1 of the constitution.  

 

Article I Section 4 (emphasis added)

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

So it would appear that congress does have power to do some legislating, in regard to federal elections.

 

[Airbrush]

17 hours ago, swansont said:

Excuse me? Tyranny?

In their point of view.  That is how they explain it.  My brother complained he thought Obama was becoming a dictator.  After so many executive orders by Obama after the senate refused to even vote on every bill Obama and the House introduced.  EOs was the only way to do anything and  McConnell was proud to be known as the "grim reaper" of Democrat bills.

Edited January 11, 2021 by Airbrush

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

In their point of view.  That is how they explain it.  My brother complained he thought Obama was becoming a dictator.  After so many executive orders by Obama after the senate refused to even vote on every bill Obama and the House introduced.  EOs was the only way to do anything and  McConnell was proud to be known as the "grim reaper" of Democrat bills.

Interesting that this make Obama the villain...

Also the ignorance of fact; Obama signed fewer EOs (276) than W did (291), and, as it turns out, Trump has signed almost as many (207) in less than half the time.
https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders

The reason I asked is that it's not in scare quotes and the tone of another part — "Trump openly extorts"  — is decidedly not from their point of view. 

[iNow]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

So it would appear that congress does have power to do some legislating, in regard to federal elections

Learned something new today. Thank you for the correction. 

[swansont]

31 minutes ago, iNow said:

Learned something new today. Thank you for the correction. 

The thing that strikes me is that the right to vote is implied but not stated; the mention in Article I is the congressional powers, which is OK for the main part of the Constitution, since that's what it does (enumerated powers and limits on powers) but there is no mention in the Bill of Rights. It's only until we get to amendments that were added that we get the suggestion that voting is a right, and these only came about because the right was being denied to certain groups of people.

Maybe what we need is a new amendment: The right of the people to vote shall not be infringed.

Clear and to the point. Not that it wouldn't keep people from messing with it, but it would make it tougher