January 6th legal proceedings and investigations megathread

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/ZcohenCNN/status/1537876001207767041

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

https://businessinsider.com/trump-brags-hes-been-impeached-twice-and-screams-nothing-matters-2022-6

Trump just called insurrection commission irrelevant

[Farmlands]

Anyone who voted in a poll here that 1/6 was not comparable to 9/11 wanna change their position on that at this point?

It's... really still not. The comparison is hysterical, frankly. Yes, it was a bit shocking watching live, but when the dust settled, there were 5 deaths, most natural and of people there by choice, compared to 3000 innocent people just going about their day and targets struck to cause the most fear.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's possible to say that January 6 was really bad and emphasize that without claiming it was worse than 9/11. That really cheapens the point and turns off a lot of people including many who actually do think it was really bad.

[GeorgiaModerate]

It's really rather meaningless to debate which of 9/11 or January 6 was "worse" than the other. They were both terrible events, but in qualitatively different ways.  9/11 was a horrible external attack on the U.S. that caused a massive loss of life and shock to the American psyche, but it was pretty much a one-shot blow; there is no ongoing, significant threat to the U.S. as a result.  In contrast, January 6 was less violent and resulted in a much smaller loss of life, but it was a blow struck at the heart of the U.S. government itself, and signified a continuing internal threat to the future of the U.S. as a democratic republic.

[Badger]

Yeah that's from Ferguson.

Of course it is.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1536652877833306112

You seem to be I'm at the misimpression that anyone should or does give a flying flip what to Lucy gabbard says.

[Badger]

We found out today that a confidential informant in the Proud Boys said that they absolutely would have killed Pence if they got the chance. We also found out that rioters got within 40 feet of Pence.

We probably only narrowly dodged an actual massacre on that day. If they had done what they wanted to do to Pence, any limited amount of restraint in that mob would have been gone, and every single member of Congress would have been a target for similar violence except perhaps for the Qanon freaks who may have joined in and turned on their colleagues.

No no no no no! Total nonsense! Several posters of a totally not garbage walking piles of steaming excrement have said it was nothing more than a complete nothing for her! You must be mistaken!!

[LBJer]

Anyone who voted in a poll here that 1/6 was not comparable to 9/11 wanna change their position on that at this point?

It's... really still not. The comparison is hysterical, frankly. Yes, it was a bit shocking watching live, but when the dust settled, there were 5 deaths, most natural and of people there by choice, compared to 3000 innocent people just going about their day and targets struck to cause the most fear.

You just don't get it.  Deaths are not the only measure of seriousness here.  There's also the issue of our democracy--and 1/6 was a much greater threat to that than 9/11.  And may I remind you of the many people throughout American history who have voluntarily given their lives to preserve the United States as the democracy that it is.  That alone suggests your analysis is simplistic and shallow at best. 

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

It's really rather meaningless to debate which of 9/11 or January 6 was "worse" than the other. They were both terrible events, but in qualitatively different ways.  9/11 was a horrible external attack on the U.S. that caused a massive loss of life and shock to the American psyche, but it was pretty much a one-shot blow; there is no ongoing, significant threat to the U.S. as a result.  In contrast, January 6 was less violent and resulted in a much smaller loss of life, but it was a blow struck at the heart of the U.S. government itself, and signified a continuing internal threat to the future of the U.S. as a democratic republic.

This is almost exactly my perspective

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's worth noting Lettig said Trump is laying the Ground work to overturn the 24 ELECTION he can't Kamala is gonna certify the Election and Trump is still under criminal and Civil investigation, but since DOJ is taking it's sweet time lead by Garland and we don't know about GA, Trump is acting like DOJ isn't gonna prosecute him, because even Garland and most of DOJ are part of Federalist society since Jay E Hoover, that's why Rs blocked Abe Fortas they wanted Nixon to appoint Burger whom was part of Federalist society

[Inmate Trump]

9/11 vs 1/6....just because one had a larger loss of life doesn't mean it was more damaging.

9/11 was an outside attack. It brought Americans together, regardless of political party. Everyone rallied behind the flag, behind the president, and stood with each other. Our differences no longer mattered. It did have some horrible outcomes, namely wars under false pretenses and government overreach.

1/6 was a direct attack by Americans on American soil and on democracy itself. It divided us even further than we already were, and it was perpetrated by an American president. The truth behind the attack is ignored or denied by one half of the population. It signifies that democracy is in grave danger, and is being threatened from within. The threat is ongoing and is not being quelled. One half of the nation is spiraling into extremism. We have enemies within and seemingly nothing can unite us again, at least not anytime soon. There is now a "cold war" within our borders between the right and left.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1537640003714658306?cxt=HHwWhMC93fjb5dYq...

[BG-NY]

You were doing fine with your response until you went off the deep end there.  (a) The election was not "fixed" by mail voting or any other method.  If there was a shred of real evidence and not just deluded fantasies and conspiracy theories, it would have come out in the numerous election challenges and court cases.  You do nothing but harm your credibility by perpetuating this lie.  (b) It was not just an "organic protest", as you would know if you had been watching the 1/6 committee hearings (which I strongly suspect you have not).  

Making sweeping changes to voter and election laws in the year of an election is nothing short of vote fixing. I am not a delusional person who believes in extensive ballot fraud. I don't believe these changes should have taken place in the same year as an election, and were tilted toward the democrats (i.e. in Pennsylvania, having VBM but not in-person early voting).

There were hundreds of thousands of people at the mall who were there for a rally as counterprogramming to the events at the Capitol. There were a handful of bad actors who let things get out of hand, and Trump vacating the crowd allowed things to get out of hand. Anybody who was in private groups on Twitter, Discord, IRC, or WhatsApp of people angry about the purported election outcome knew that a ton of voters they conversed with wanted their voices to be heard.

Believing that president advised people to invade the Capitol is as delusional as supporting the Russiahoax or a score of other conspiracies the neoliberal internationalist center-left has employed as distractions. This is Biden's "bread and circuses". I am considering voting for Biden in 2024 and am embarrassed for him.

[GeorgiaModerate]

You were doing fine with your response until you went off the deep end there.  (a) The election was not "fixed" by mail voting or any other method.  If there was a shred of real evidence and not just deluded fantasies and conspiracy theories, it would have come out in the numerous election challenges and court cases.  You do nothing but harm your credibility by perpetuating this lie.  (b) It was not just an "organic protest", as you would know if you had been watching the 1/6 committee hearings (which I strongly suspect you have not).  

Making sweeping changes to voter and election laws in the year of an election is nothing short of vote fixing. I am not a delusional person who believes in extensive ballot fraud. I don't believe these changes should have taken place in the same year as an election, and were tilted toward the democrats (i.e. in Pennsylvania, having VBM but not in-person early voting).

Maybe you should take that up with the PA Legislature, which is controlled by…wait for it…Republicans.

Prior to 2020, mail voting has always favored Republicans, and they would have done just fine with it if Trump had not stupidly turned his voters against it. That has to be one of the most self-sabotaging actions in recent US politics.

[BG-NY]

Maybe you should take that up with the PA Legislature, which is controlled by…wait for it…Republicans.

Prior to 2020, mail voting has always favored Republicans, and they would have done just fine with it if Trump had not stupidly turned his voters against it. That has to be one of the most self-sabotaging actions in recent US politics.

Your point? Establishment scum like Kemp, Pence, and McConnell are as much an enemy of American people as are Harris, Crooked, and Pelosi. I'm an independent.

In the 2020 primaries and special elections, vote by mail CLEARLY benefitted democrats while in person early voting benefitted republicans. There was plenty of data prior to the changes.

I don't oppose vote by mail. I oppose vote by mail WITHOUT in person early voting, and oppose ANY ballot or registration laws in election years going into effect for that year's election.

I have no issue on the other hand with AVR in GA, since it occurred over a year prior to the election.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Maybe you should take that up with the PA Legislature, which is controlled by…wait for it…Republicans.

Prior to 2020, mail voting has always favored Republicans, and they would have done just fine with it if Trump had not stupidly turned his voters against it. That has to be one of the most self-sabotaging actions in recent US politics.

Your point? Establishment scum like Kemp, Pence, and McConnell are as much an enemy of American people as are Harris, Crooked, and Pelosi. I'm an independent.

In the 2020 primaries and special elections, vote by mail CLEARLY benefitted democrats while in person early voting benefitted republicans. There was plenty of data prior to the changes.

I don't oppose vote by mail. I oppose vote by mail WITHOUT in person early voting, and oppose ANY ballot or registration laws in election years going into effect for that year's election.

I have no issue on the other hand with AVR in GA, since it occurred over a year prior to the election.

Harris and Pelosi get money from unions Teachers unions and Hollywood celebrities like LeBron James and Curry and Oprah whom are Billionaire, Koch Bros and NRA favor tax cuts for rich pour money into R CiffereBush Wand Trump passed1.5 T each tax cuts fir the rich


We only pay 15 percent in taxes which iskistky health insurance abd SSA taxes and Unemployment insurance people making over100K a yr like Docs abd Firemen pay 35 percent in taxes which tax cuts favorite


I doubt you make 100K a yr and pay 35 percentage, that Rs favor in taxes you pay 15 percent in taxes which is Ds favors the average 15.00 40 Hr a week is 30 K, 15 percent in taxes that pays for your unemployment, Medicare and SSA benefits and State income taxes which comes with food stamps that's way below what a rich person whom is a Firefighter R makes, stop complaining about D's that helps the poor

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Those Stimulus checks weren't free money or extended unemployment that we gotten, it came right out of our payroll taxes when you get a lump sum of SSA benefits from your Appeal, if you qualify for Disability,clearly retirement, it's the same as a 2K stimulus check, so users criticizing D's it's the Rs that protect the rich Obama wanted to raise the cap on SSA over 150 K and Boehner said no because he didn't want to raise TAXES

But, the Employers pay payroll taxes too and matches your Payroll taxes for your unemployment and SSA that's why when you file unemployment or Disability it's adjudication, because Employers don't want you to collect until 55 or 62 or 65

[emailking]

They were both really bad. I don't think we need to rank them. It's apples and oranges anyway.

[Torie]

The article below quotes several prosecutors as thinking Trump committed crimes. While I agree that Trump's grifting might well be  crime, as to the Jan 6 events, I don't see how pursuing bogus legal theories in bad faith that will be thrown out by the courts, including pushing for phony electors picked by state legislatures, and that Pence had the power to delay the count and accept them, is a crime. It is not as if anything is covered up, and once the courts rule, it is over. Sure it would get you disbarred, sure it is wrong, and in some circumstances a civil tort perhaps, and subject to sanctions for the costs imposed on the parties and the courts for filing frivolous claims in bad faith. But not a crime. So based on what I know so far, I dissent.

The closest we come to a crime is Trump telling the GA SOS over whom he has no authority to find more votes that he knows are there. I don't think that is enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/19/trump-charges-january-6-hearings-capitol-attack

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1538509487832711169

[LBJer]

The article below quotes several prosecutors as thinking Trump committed crimes. While I agree that Trump's grifting might well be  crime, as to the Jan 6 events, I don't see how pursuing bogus legal theories in bad faith that will be thrown out by the courts, including pushing for phony electors picked by state legislatures, and that Pence had the power to delay the count and accept them, is a crime. It is not as if anything is covered up, and once the courts rule, it is over. Sure it would get you disbarred, sure it is wrong, and in some circumstances a civil tort perhaps, and subject to sanctions for the costs imposed on the parties and the courts for filing frivolous claims in bad faith. But not a crime. So based on what I know so far, I dissent.

The closest we come to a crime is Trump telling the GA SOS over whom he has no authority to find more votes that he knows are there. I don't think that is enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/19/trump-charges-january-6-hearings-capitol-attack

But there's now testimony that Trump told Pence to refuse to accept electoral votes for Biden even though those around him--including Eastman himself, the person whose idea it was to do this--had informed him it was illegal.  That makes Trump's own conduct here criminal.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1538509487832711169

To borrow a phrase: Lock him up

[Torie]

The article below quotes several prosecutors as thinking Trump committed crimes. While I agree that Trump's grifting might well be  crime, as to the Jan 6 events, I don't see how pursuing bogus legal theories in bad faith that will be thrown out by the courts, including pushing for phony electors picked by state legislatures, and that Pence had the power to delay the count and accept them, is a crime. It is not as if anything is covered up, and once the courts rule, it is over. Sure it would get you disbarred, sure it is wrong, and in some circumstances a civil tort perhaps, and subject to sanctions for the costs imposed on the parties and the courts for filing frivolous claims in bad faith. But not a crime. So based on what I know so far, I dissent.

The closest we come to a crime is Trump telling the GA SOS over whom he has no authority to find more votes that he knows are there. I don't think that is enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/19/trump-charges-january-6-hearings-capitol-attack

But there's now testimony that Trump told Pence to refuse to accept electoral votes for Biden even though those around him--including Eastman himself, the person whose idea it was to do this--had informed him it was illegal.  That makes Trump's own conduct here criminal.

1. The illegal bit was blowing off the electoral count statute. The theory Eastman was promoting was that that act was unconstitutional because state legislatures have the final say. Eastman wanted that tested before SCOTUS, and then the discussion with Jacob, Pence's attorney, about the vote being 7-2 and then 9-0 against Trump. But just because a legal theory appears to be frivolous, that does not make it a crime to give it a test drive in court. I suspect if Pence had adjourned the count for 10 days as Eastman was urging, SCOTUS would have ordered it to re-commence within 72 hours thereafter. (It was a no brainer, because there was no evidence that the vote count in the subject states was fraudulent or wrong.)

2. I understand that you don't agree, but it is my view that it is hard to criminalize something that will be resolved by the court in a hurry. In other words, Trump persuades Pence (he can't order Pence), to do something that is almost certainly not within Pence's power and would be wrong in any event, but even if Pence goes for it, the court will reverse, and it is over. If Trump defies SCOTUS or course, then in this context he is a felon. But everyone gets their day in court. Think of it this way. If Pence did Trump's bidding, and SCOTUS made its ruling within 72 hours, and the count was completed on Jan 10, 2021, and that was the end of it, do you think Trump committed a crime by attempting, and then succeeding, in changing Pence's mind?

3. Thus, I don't see Garland indicting on this issue. If the GA SOS makes clearer that Trump wanted him to create phony votes, via doing something fraudulent, like fiddling with the machines or something, and there is a crime of trying to persuade somebody to commit a crime (hey, shoplift that pair of socks for me please), that would be considerably more promising material for Garland. We shall see.

Make sense?

[LBJer]

The article below quotes several prosecutors as thinking Trump committed crimes. While I agree that Trump's grifting might well be  crime, as to the Jan 6 events, I don't see how pursuing bogus legal theories in bad faith that will be thrown out by the courts, including pushing for phony electors picked by state legislatures, and that Pence had the power to delay the count and accept them, is a crime. It is not as if anything is covered up, and once the courts rule, it is over. Sure it would get you disbarred, sure it is wrong, and in some circumstances a civil tort perhaps, and subject to sanctions for the costs imposed on the parties and the courts for filing frivolous claims in bad faith. But not a crime. So based on what I know so far, I dissent.

The closest we come to a crime is Trump telling the GA SOS over whom he has no authority to find more votes that he knows are there. I don't think that is enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/19/trump-charges-january-6-hearings-capitol-attack

But there's now testimony that Trump told Pence to refuse to accept electoral votes for Biden even though those around him--including Eastman himself, the person whose idea it was to do this--had informed him it was illegal.  That makes Trump's own conduct here criminal.

1. The illegal bit was blowing off the electoral count statute. The theory Eastman was promoting was that that act was unconstitutional because state legislatures have the final say. Eastman wanted that tested before SCOTUS, and then the discussion with Jacob, Pence's attorney, about the vote being 7-2 and then 9-0 against Trump. But just because a legal theory appears to be frivolous, that does not make it a crime to give it a test drive in court. I suspect if Pence had adjourned the count for 10 days as Eastman was urging, SCOTUS would have ordered it to re-commence within 72 hours thereafter. (It was a no brainer, because there was no evidence that the vote count in the subject states was fraudulent or wrong.)

2. I understand that you don't agree, but it is my view that it is hard to criminalize something that will be resolved by the court in a hurry. In other words, Trump persuades Pence (he can't order Pence), to do something that is almost certainly not within Pence's power and would be wrong in any event, but even if Pence goes for it, the court will reverse, and it is over. If Trump defies SCOTUS or course, then in this context he is a felon. But everyone gets their day in court. Think of it this way. If Pence did Trump's bidding, and SCOTUS made its ruling within 72 hours, and the count was completed on Jan 10, 2021, and that was the end of it, do you think Trump committed a crime by attempting, and then succeeding, in changing Pence's mind?

3. Thus, I don't see Garland indicting on this issue. If the GA SOS makes clearer that Trump wanted him to create phony votes, via doing something fraudulent, like fiddling with the machines or something, and there is a crime of trying to persuade something to do a crime (hey, shoplift that pair of socks for me please), that would be considerably more promising material for Garland. We shall see.

No dice.  You can't avoid liability for asking to someone to do something illegal based on a novel "legal theory" if you know perfectly well that theory is bogus to begin with, just because a court hasn't ruled on it yet.