What is this blustering nonsense .. who is ignoring the constitution to appease a cult mob -- pure nonsense .. start to finish ?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Kick Trump Off Ballot
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
What is this blustering nonsense .. who is ignoring the constitution to appease a cult mob -- pure nonsense .. start to finish ?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Yeah, there was. It's been adjudicated all across the country.There was no insurrection -- there was no violent uprising againt the Gov't -- - as such a thing doesn't exist .. fallacious personification .. How does one act violently against the Gov't ? and as told you previously .. there was no legitimate chance of achieving the goal of taking over the Gov't by violent protest of a Gov't building .. this is pure nonsense on steroids .. and no mens rea .. so no crime.
Your claim that all protests that become violent is "Terrorism" is made up nonsense on steroids .. Police state authoritarianism .. that has turned this absolutely ridiculous and absurd claim into reality. Thats the thing about Totalitarianism -- everything becomes a lie.
why are you talking about Trump on something completely unrelated ? some kind of TDS going on that you just have to talk about him.
Show me "Men's Rea" - for insurrection .. that there was some intent to take over the entire US Gov't via the capital protest -- and good luck friend
Full list of Capitol rioters jailed so far, the sentences they are serving
Around 64 percent of those who have received sentences in relation to the January 6 uprising have been handed jail time.
www.newsweek.com
Your argument that they "didn't stand a chance" is moot. Attempting to commit a crime is still a crime.
Using your logic, if I attempt to rob a Vegas Casino but I fail because it's too big, there's too much security and I planned poorly for it, then I haven't committed a crime. Which of course, is nonsense.
Last edited:
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
"The “mentes reae” of insurrection and seditious conspiracy—the mental states required for conviction—differ from each other only slightly. To establish either crime, the government would be required to prove that Trump intended the violence that occurred January 6.19 Aug 2"
I would argue that the Mens Rea or mentes reae is clear for both crimes. In Donald's case. The evidence is clear to me.
For example (of many) the following is a damning statement of Trump's state of mind and intent at the time.
"On the morning of January 6, Tony Ornato, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, advised Meadows that the crowd gathering for the rally on the Ellipse included people carrying “knives, guns in the form of pistols and rifles, bear spray, body armor, spears and flag poles.” When Meadows asked, “Have you talked to the President?,” Ornato answered: “Yes, Sir. He’s aware.”
Seditious Conspiracy vs. Insurrection: Assessing the Evidence Against Trump
University of Chicago criminal law professor Al Alschuler writes that due to evidentiary gaps and plausible alternative explanations, the crime that fits Trump’s actions for January 6th: Insurrection Act, not seditious conspiracy.
www.justsecurity.org
Yet no action was taken. no extra police or other armed services were sent to counter that threat. Even though it was known to the president, before the insurrection started. This reveals that Trump was arguably using his position and informed inaction to ensure the insurrectionists, were not later impeded.
I would argue that this is at the very best, a severe failure of duty, and at worst, an attempt to aid and abet the insurrection attempt on Jan 6th.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Cultists, you know, Maga.
Demented people.
What about the Constitution is being ignored by these Maga Cultists ?
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Read the post I was responding to.
"The “mentes reae” of insurrection and seditious conspiracy—the mental states required for conviction—differ from each other only slightly. To establish either crime, the government would be required to prove that Trump intended the violence that occurred January 6.19 Aug 2"
I would argue that the Mens Rea or mentes reae is clear for both crimes. In Donald's case. The evidence is clear to me.
For example (of many) the following is a damning statement of Trump's state of mind and intent at the time.
"On the morning of January 6, Tony Ornato, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, advised Meadows that the crowd gathering for the rally on the Ellipse included people carrying “knives, guns in the form of pistols and rifles, bear spray, body armor, spears and flag poles.” When Meadows asked, “Have you talked to the President?,” Ornato answered: “Yes, Sir. He’s aware.”
Seditious Conspiracy vs. Insurrection: Assessing the Evidence Against Trump
University of Chicago criminal law professor Al Alschuler writes that due to evidentiary gaps and plausible alternative explanations, the crime that fits Trump’s actions for January 6th: Insurrection Act, not seditious conspiracy.
Yet no action was taken. no extra police or other armed services were sent to counter that threat. Even though it was known to the president, before the insurrection started. This reveals that Trump was arguably using his position and informed inaction to ensure the insurrectionists, were not later impeded.
I would argue that this is at the very best, a severe failure of duty, and at worst, an attempt to aid and abet the insurrection attempt on Jan 6th.
There was no insurrection -- no "Intent" to take over the Gov't . Only a complete moron would belive that storming a single Gov't building -- Capital Building -- White house .. what ever - could accomplish the taking over of the US Gov't .. Taking over Ship USA.
This is the idiocy we see playing out -- Orwellian doublespeak -- words no longer have the same meaning -- everything becomes a lie .. don't drink the kool-aid .. cause its spiked
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Trump is clearly a traitor and I will put money on him running to Russia, or attempting to.There was no insurrection -- no "Intent" to take over the Gov't . Only a complete moron would belive that storming a single Gov't building -- Capital Building -- White house .. what ever - could accomplish the taking over of the US Gov't .. Taking over Ship USA.
This is the idiocy we see playing out -- Orwellian doublespeak -- words no longer have the same meaning -- everything becomes a lie .. don't drink the kool-aid .. cause its spiked
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You have to be kidding me. It appears that you do not understand what mens rea means. They do not have to know what specific law that they are breaking. They only need to be shown to be doing something that they know to be wrong:There was no insurrection -- there was no violent uprising againt the Gov't -- - as such a thing doesn't exist .. fallacious personification .. How does one act violently against the Gov't ? and as told you previously .. there was no legitimate chance of achieving the goal of taking over the Gov't by violent protest of a Gov't building .. this is pure nonsense on steroids .. and no mens rea .. so no crime.
Your claim that all protests that become violent is "Terrorism" is made up nonsense on steroids .. Police state authoritarianism .. that has turned this absolutely ridiculous and absurd claim into reality. Thats the thing about Totalitarianism -- everything becomes a lie.
why are you talking about Trump on something completely unrelated ? some kind of TDS going on that you just have to talk about him.
Show me "Men's Rea" - for insurrection .. that there was some intent to take over the entire US Gov't via the capital protest -- and good luck friend
"Mens rea refers to criminal intent. The literal translation from Latin is "guilty mind." The plural of mens rea is mentes reae. Mens rea is the state of mind statutorily required in order to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime. Establishing the mens rea of an offender, in addition to the actus reus (physical elements of the crime) is usually necessary to prove guilt in a criminal trial. The prosecution typically must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense with a culpable state of mind. Justice Holmes famously illustrated the concept of intent when he said “even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.”
The mens rea requirement is premised upon the idea that one must possess a guilty state of mind and be aware of his or her misconduct; however, a defendant need not know that their conduct is illegal to be guilty of a crime. Rather, the defendant must be conscious of the “facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense." See: Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994)."
mens rea
They broke into Congress. The force their way in by breaking windows and forcing open doors. Are you going to honestly claim that they did not know that was a wrong thing to do? If it was that easy none of them would have been convicted of serious crimes. You should not pretend to understand the law just because of a term that you read.
That could well be true .. but has nothing to do with the fact that there was no "Insurrection" .. no men's rea .. yet in kangarooland we throwing folks in jail for 10 years ... as if it was.. "Insurrection" - "Terrorism" .. which no longer have much meaning in the Orwellian doublespeak cancel culture land.
Rather sick and sad .. the "Cop City" protesters ... "Terrorists" -- thats what they do in police state land .. any kind of dissent is punished to the harshest extent of some kangarooland law.. made to order ..
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Your reasoning is as disjointed as your syntax my friend.
Vladimir Putin awaits his most successful operative.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The many hours of testimony by the January 6th Committee's interviews of so many Trump appointees says otherwise. You might still access them on YouTube.There was no insurrection -- no "Intent" to take over the Gov't . Only a complete moron would belive that storming a single Gov't building -- Capital Building -- White house .. what ever - could accomplish the taking over of the US Gov't .. Taking over Ship USA.
This is the idiocy we see playing out -- Orwellian doublespeak -- words no longer have the same meaning -- everything becomes a lie .. don't drink the kool-aid .. cause its spiked
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You appear to be in favor of that.
That's not required to convict. It's also not my job. Prosecutors have and will continue to do that in courtrooms, and juries will continue to convict based on the evidence presented. As I noted, they've been working up, beginning with the soldiers, several hundred of which have been convicted of violent acts intended to prevent Pence from certifying the election, followed by a couple of their immediate leaders (Proud Boys, Oath Keepers). Next will be the consiglieres as I already mentioned, and then Trump.
Also, there is no burden of proof for me here. You have access to and have seen all of the same evidence I do and have. Showing it to you again won't have any more impact on your thinking than it did before.
Completely unrelated? Trump's approach to stealing the election was multi-pronged. The failed insurrection was one part of it. There were also false electors and calls to Secretaries of State. They considered seizing voting machines. It's summarized in the J6 Committee's report.
As for "TDS (Trump derangement syndrome)," in addition to being low information (bleach for Covid, Revolutionary War airports, windmills kill whales) and suffering from an incurable psychiatric aberration - malignant narcissism - the man is now both deranged and demented. He's up all night rage tweeting, defying and insulting the judges presiding over his trials, and can't seem to remember where he is, who he ran against, how many world wars have been fought, and more.
It might be time for you to reconsider using that abbreviation, just like it's time for Trump to stop calling Biden cognitively impaired, but when did Trump ever show good judgement? The smart money is on Trump having his bail revoked and being sent to jail before Christmas for defying gag orders. How's that for deranged?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, but the mens rea was clear. You do not seem to understand that term.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
It's got to be 2:1 at best.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
I will wager any RF member $50 or 50 Euros in Amazon vouchers that Trump has permanently relocated to Russia, which has no extradition treaty with the USA, before the end of next year.
I'd be good with that. Assuming Putin wants him for anything other than to poison or defenestrate to silence a loose cannon who is now of no value to him alive and for whom he undoubtedly has much contempt, imagine what his life would be like there.I will wager any RF member $50 or 50 Euros in Amazon vouchers that Trump has permanently relocated to Russia, which has no extradition treaty with the USA, before the end of next year.
Here's an opinion you might find interesting. This guy (who has lived with two narcissists and considers himself well qualified to predict what Trump can and cannot do) thinks Trump would have trouble getting to Russia and that Trump won't go into hiding because of his ego and need for adulation:
"Contrary to popular belief, it would be very difficult for him to flee justice in Trump Force One, what Trump pretentiously calls his Boeing 757-200 jet aircraft. The aircraft does not possess the range — 3,900 nautical miles (7,220 km; 4,490 mi) — to cross the Atlantic Ocean, and certainly not the Pacific Ocean. He could not use it to flee nonstop to any likely country such as Russia or North Korea. Those countries are not in range.
However, that would not prevent some wealthy friend with a jet with a superior range from helping him. But that would entail breaking serious laws, and is there anyone still available who is stupid enough to stick their neck that far out for Donald Trump? Perhaps.
In any case, fleeing justice is also not the narcissistic way. It’s too much an admission of failure and would take him too far out of the limelight. Going from president of the United States to a fugitive from justice — like Robert Vesco or Roman Polanski — would be very hard for Trump to take. Possibly even worse than jail."
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
If he acted like a grown up, this stuff wouldn't happen. He doesn't know when to shut up. He's a spoiled brat and not very smart to boot.
Ultimately, it will be decided by the courts, although the legal questions being decided haven't really been thoroughly hashed out as of yet. While many people here seem certain of the outcome, it appears the legal experts charged with deciding this question haven't reached any kind of consensus as of yet.