1. Depends on the crime. Strict liability crimes do not require intent. 2. That's what I'm getting at. I'm trying to find out where you all draw the line on the issue of intent, and the issue of who gets to define insurrection and decide whether Trump is guilty of insurrection for purposes of the 14th Amendment, and how broad that discretion should be. "Sick"
SCOTUS reversed the Florida decision. Gore did the right thing taking his case to the court system, and then abiding by the SCOTUS decision. Once the court ruled, Gore ended his attempts to change the election outcome. The reason why Gore, nor any of his associates were ever charged because they had a legit case tried by the courts. So did Trump. But while Gore ended his activities to overturn the election stopped when the courts ruled, Trump did not. As evidenced by J6 and the fake elector scheme. Had Trump followed Gore's lead and stopped contesting the election after the courts ruled, no charges against him, and no Colorado Supreme Court ruling against him. The courts are where election contentions should live. Not a mob attacking the Capital, or fake electors.
Thank you - informative. So, now we know: the US Senate- per the constitution -actually tried DJT on insurrection and did not find him guilty. But, some folks in Colorado can convene and decide they know differently and act accordingly. Got it. That’s the beauty of our system- it gives states the latitude to do good things and to do stupid things. And, just because I don’t agree with Colorado doesn’t mean I’m going to dox them, boycott them, or try to use the power of government against them. I love the clarity of the moment.
Chesbro and others have plead guilty to elector scheme charges in Georgia. And in Wisconsin, as part of a civil suit agreement, fake electors have agreed to say the scheme was illegal.
Generally criminals are arrested and convicted after they commit the crime. Had the J6 insurrectionists just congregated and then dispersed before any crime, no insurrection and no charges. On the other hand, bringing a civil suit to contest an election is not a crime. Which us why Gore never faced any insurrection allegations or criminal charges. And Trump's insurrection is not about court cases, but Jan 6 and the fake elector scheme.
I'm asking when was the precise role of the Vice President in counting electors settled law. Trump had an interpretation that hadn't been tested before. How is he to know prior to trying it? Yes there were reliable legal opinions saying his interpretation was incorrect, but there's only one way to know for sure, right? Just like Gore didn't know the recounting of electors at that point was unconstitutional until SCOTUS ruled on it.
Ah, the Left strikes again. ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK!!!! Thank you. When folks cannot discuss rationally they attack - I wear it as a badge of courage.
Coloradans want people to stay away. A lot of what we love suffers from congestion externalities - hiking, hunting, skiing, camping etc. We like emptiness & wide open spaces. We want less not more people here. Only state to say no to the olympics. Why - we feared the infrastructure & attention would encourage & support more people. We want to be boycotted! Both the CCF and Lamm fought to keep the Olympic issue in the public eye. Their determination attracted the support of major environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and Zero Population Growth. When representative Lamm nearly pushed a bill through the legislature that would have terminated state funding for the games, the CCF was emboldened to put the issue to popular vote. Olympic opponents managed to collect more than 77,000 voter signatures to place the question of state and city funding for the games on the November 1972 ballot. While the DOC was concerned by the mounting political pressure, it remained confident that federal and private funding would suffice in the unlikely event that the initiative passed. This confidence was shattered when the US Senate Interior Committee declared that federal funding would be contingent on the outcome of the November ballot. The DOC scrambled to organize a political response. At the behest of the committee, major news outlets such as the Denver Post wrote pro-Olympic articles stressing the economic benefits of hosting the games. Some Coloradans, however, were already beginning to doubt the financial boons the DOC promised. Not only did costs frequently run over budget, but the committee had already spent more than $1 million and had nothing to show for it. Furthermore, the DOC failed to address environmental concerns raised by opposition groups. On November 7, 1972, Coloradans overwhelmingly voted against funding the games. https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/1976-winter-olympics
It was obviously illegal. The laws on deciding state electors are written, and that's how a POTUS is elected. Giving the VPOTUS the power to ignore all states and their election laws and arbitrarily choose who gets seated in the Electoral College and who de facto is elected President is obviously overstepping Constitutional authority. If the VPOTUS had this power, why would an opposing party ever win a POTUS election?
If it wasn't, again, why would a VPOTUS every seat an Electoral College that would elect a POTUS from the other party?
Because none of them were as smart as Trump, which is actually Trump's most likely train of thought here.
This is from last year and I’m not updated on Eastman since then but this all seems damning if true. Trump Attorney Eastman Admitted His Jan. 6 Plot Was Illegal—and Asked for a Pardon
