If Trump Loses In November, What Do You Think Happens Next

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's still crazy to me that this people literally* tried to overthrow the government and they're all getting sentences less than 10 years, and many less than 5.

To me, the trials should start with the supposition of "so, explain why we shouldn't hang you" and then work back from that.

*in the correct use of the word, no less

If they don't have a previous record, don't prosecutors usually plead down for the slam dunk? I don't think a lot of the 1/6ers were criminals before that day.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Meanwhile, Trump has gone directly to the Georgia Supreme Court to try to get Fani Wllis removed from his case in Georgia, and have the grand jury finding permanently sealed. His lawyers literally cited a court finding in the case that stipulates what they are trying can be done the way they are trying. It is so obvious he forces lawyers to do what he wants not what is legally required.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

GA Supreme Court tells Trump FU in correct legal terms of course unanimously

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by bronconick

If they don't have a previous record, don't prosecutors usually plead down for the slam dunk? I don't think a lot of the 1/6ers were criminals before that day.

There's also the more basic fact of 'ok, under what statute do we hang them'? If we want that to be the punishment, we need a law that they broke, in effect at the time of their actions, which provides for that as the consequence.

It seems to me that a lot of (very appropriate) anger about what happened on January 6 results in 'I want consequence X to happen' and sort of over-rides thoughts of ok, but what are the practical prosecutorial realities here. What does the law actually provide for.

The talk of treason continually just muddies the waters because of course, treason is a term with a specific meaning that just doesn't apply here. Insurrection is punishable under 18 USC 2383 by fines and/or a 10-year sentence, and forbids anyone convicted of ever holding public office in the future. It is nowhere near a capital offense. Doesn't matter if we think we should just kill them all, that's just plain not what the law says. Even 'seditious conspiracy' maxes out at 20 years. Any prosecutor who just went for capital conviction on these people would be guaranteeing that they don't serve any time at all.

The irony of people infuriated at the lack of respect for the rule of law who call for punishments which in fact don't respect said rule of law either is ... unfortunate.

[Lathum]

Not to go all Edward, but seems to me like textbook treason. If they weren’t attempting to overthrow the government then what were they doing there?

treason definition - Google Search

[NobodyHere]

I honestly would bet that most of the rioters had no idea what they were doing or what the end game was.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I honestly would bet that most of the rioters had no idea what they were doing or what the end game was.

of course they did: "We MAKE HOLES IN TEETH!"

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I honestly would bet that most of the rioters had no idea what they were doing or what the end game was.

That’s on them.

[CrimsonFox]

I AM GOING INTO THE CAPITOL TO SMASH!

that is what they were doing
period
ps that's illegal

[SirFozzie]

Let's not forget they had gallows built and photos of the press on them.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I honestly would bet that most of the rioters had no idea what they were doing or what the end game was.

What the fuck difference does that make

[CrimsonFox]

uh oh now you've done it. you've upset butter

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

That’s on them.

It would generally be on the prosecutor to prove that the rioters motive was treason.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I honestly would bet that most of the rioters had no idea what they were doing or what the end game was.

I'd take that bet. They all knew they were there to stop the certification of the election. They were trying to pressure Pence into overturning the election, or they were going to stop the proceedings themselves. They knew exactly why they were there, it was the how that took many forms.

[CrimsonFox]

but none of that matters as republican judges will let off anyone and everyone

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I'd take that bet. They all knew they were there to stop the certification of the election. They were trying to pressure Pence into overturning the election, or they were going to stop the proceedings themselves. They knew exactly why they were there, it was the how that took many forms.

I would agree with this. They all knew why they were there. The "how" part of pulling it off was up in the air and is likely what led to the disorganization that ultimately became the coup attempt we saw.

Take some armed and angry people with a goal but no direction, have Trump fuel them with more anger, tell them to March on the capital, and then just watch what happens.

[GrantDawg]

I really don't get why this stuff took so long.

NEW: Michigan Attorney General announces charges of 16 "False Electors" alleging they "met covertly in the basement of the Michigan Republican Party headquarters... signed their names to multiple certificates stating they were the duly elected & qualified electors for President"

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) July 18, 2023

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I honestly would bet that most of the rioters had no idea what they were doing or what the end game was.

Most of them stated pretty clearly what their intentions were on social media or on videos taken from the attack. They were there to prevent the counting of electoral votes and to kill politicians they did not like.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I really don't get why this stuff took so long.



Because of the enormity and severity of it-do you want any of them to get away with it because they didn't make absolutely sure they had everything they needed to ensure they get a convinction?

[CrimsonFox]

just what the fuck are false electors?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

just what the fuck are false electors?

They were not the legally registered electors following the laws of Michigan and the US-they were all ready to ignore the voters and have Trump win that states votes. I assume other battleground states will follow, and the Special Counsel has talked to all of them if the stories are correct

[Thomkal]

Here's the list of the 16 charged in Michigan:


Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel Charges 16 ‘False Electors’ with Election Law and Forgery Felonies


I don't know where they stand in the totem pole of MI Republican politics

[CrimsonFox]

of COURSE most of them are old.

[CrimsonFox]

so like where were the ACTUAL electors though?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Because of the enormity and severity of it-do you want any of them to get away with it because they didn't make absolutely sure they had everything they needed to ensure they get a convinction?

Of course not, but I am still not getting how this was hard to make a case. All of this stuff was pretty much public.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

There's also the more basic fact of 'ok, under what statute do we hang them'? If we want that to be the punishment, we need a law that they broke, in effect at the time of their actions, which provides for that as the consequence.

It seems to me that a lot of (very appropriate) anger about what happened on January 6 results in 'I want consequence X to happen' and sort of over-rides thoughts of ok, but what are the practical prosecutorial realities here. What does the law actually provide for.

The talk of treason continually just muddies the waters because of course, treason is a term with a specific meaning that just doesn't apply here. Insurrection is punishable under 18 USC 2383 by fines and/or a 10-year sentence, and forbids anyone convicted of ever holding public office in the future. It is nowhere near a capital offense. Doesn't matter if we think we should just kill them all, that's just plain not what the law says. Even 'seditious conspiracy' maxes out at 20 years. Any prosecutor who just went for capital conviction on these people would be guaranteeing that they don't serve any time at all.

The irony of people infuriated at the lack of respect for the rule of law who call for punishments which in fact don't respect said rule of law either is ... unfortunate.

I think the issue is more about what the response would be to other people. We saw the response police had to BLM protests in DC. We've seen the kinds of charges they've levied against groups who pay for bail or are loosely associated with left-wing protests. We even saw an extrajudicial killing a few years ago.

So it's not that they didn't get enough time in prison. It's that they were treated differently. I do not believe that a Muslim group storming the Capitol to overturn an election with the intent to kill politicians while they violently assault police would be allowed out on such low bail. I don't think they'd be given time to get their affairs in order before they have to serve their prison sentence.

That's my issue. I think it's fine to treat them this way if everyone else is given the same leniency and benefit of the doubt.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Of course not, but I am still not getting how this was hard to make a case. All of this stuff was pretty much public.

I think that they were just scared to do anything. This is a class of people (rich, white, politically connected) who has never really had to face legal scrutiny in the past. They've essentially been above the law.

Now that the Trump indictments have begun and the midterm results showed the public is not as big a fan of authoritarianism as we thought, I think it's made others feel more comfortable with charging people. The Trump indictment feels like the damn breaking and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw more people charged with the crimes they brazenly committed.

[albionmoonlight]

Trump Took Israeli Artifacts to Mar-a-Lago – Rolling Stone

Kind of the perfect metaphor for how the current GOP thinks of Israel.

[RainMaker]

Reading through some of the articles it appears Michigan had this case awhile back and sent it to the DOJ. Garland pussed out so they filed the charges themselves.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It would generally be on the prosecutor to prove that the rioters motive was treason.

It is always the prosecutors job to prove the crime whether it was committed or not.

If my friends and I decide to rob a bank and they murder the teller I can't defend myself by claiming I just wanted to rob the bank. I am charged with murder also.

[RainMaker]

It is telling that there were no felony murder charges against anyone who participated.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It would generally be on the prosecutor to prove that the rioters motive was treason.

I don't think you do have to prove motive

The act itself is treasonous. There was an attack on the literal highest level of our legislative branch during an attempt to peacefully transition power. Whether you "meant to do that" is irrelevant

Lathum also covered this ground

[Ksyrup]

Specific intent to betray the US is an element of the crime of treason. The muddy waters of trying to prove this crime, I think, is the whole "Trump convinced us he was the rightful president" argument, to the point where I bet a defense attorney would argue that in the defendant's mind, he believed he was protecting the US. Some sort of BS like that. I don't think it would be an easy case to prove.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Specific intent to betray the US is an element of the crime of treason. The muddy waters of trying to prove this crime, I think, is the whole "Trump convinced us he was the rightful president" argument, to the point where I bet a defense attorney would argue that in the defendant's mind, he believed he was protecting the US. Some sort of BS like that. I don't think it would be an easy case to prove.

I agree go for the easy conviction, the problem is it completely fuels the narrative of this being political since no one is actually charged with insurrection.

[Ksyrup]

This could probably go in any number of threads. I read this article half laughing and half shaking my head. Most of these people have, at best, done nothing to stop this from happening, and at worst, willingly played right into it. Feigning incredulity at what constituents believe is such a joke. In fact, the way some of the quotes acknowledge its "not just rednecks" certainly smacks of Hillary's "deplorables" comment. It's like, "we knew the uneducated racists would easily buy it, but I can't believe educated people do too!"

GOP senators rattled by radical conservative populism | The Hill

[albionmoonlight]

Yeah. "Our constituents believe what we've been telling them" isn't exactly an unanticipated problem.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I agree go for the easy conviction, the problem is it completely fuels the narrative of this being political since no one is actually charged with insurrection.

Because insurrection is a lesser charge than seditious conspiracy.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

I do not believe that a Muslim group storming the Capitol to overturn an election with the intent to kill politicians while they violently assault police would be allowed out on such low bail. I don't think they'd be given time to get their affairs in order before they have to serve their prison sentence.

I generally agree, but that is explicitly not the point being made by people I was responding to. If someone says they are getting off too easy, I agree with that. When they say 'why aren't they getting the death penalty', that's a horse of a different color.

Originally Posted by Lathum

Not to go all Edward, but seems to me like textbook treason. If they weren’t attempting to overthrow the government then what were they doing there?

I'm a little confused how you can ask this question and then a few posts later say motive doesn't matter. It makes it difficult to respond appropriately, as I don't understand if you think it matters or it doesn't. In terms of treason though, for overthrowing the government the insurrection or seditious conspiracy laws are more on point. The Constitution specifically denotes what treason is in the United States:

Originally Posted by Article III, Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Only one person in nearly 70 years has been indicted for treason, and they were killed by a drone strike and never tried. There is only one other place in the Constitution where the term war is mentioned, and that's to give Congress sole authority to declare it.

I think some of the defendants should have been tried for at least insurrection, but also what KSyrup said is on point. It does matter in terms of higher charges like seditious conspiracy what they thought they were doing and intended. Everything I've read - please correct me if I'm wrong - has been along the lines of people buying into what Trump said, which was about 'righting an election unlawfully stolen' or whatever, not overthrowing the government. The sheer idiocy and counterfactual nature of that belief notwithstanding, it still matters a lot legally what they were trying to do. Most of them had no plan of what to do once they got inside. It was a violent riot by people throwing a fit/tantrum, and in doing that I think at least insurrection against the current duly constituted authorities. But it wasn't treason, in the constitutional, legal sense of the term.

Originally Posted by Butter

The act itself is treasonous. There was an attack on the literal highest level of our legislative branch during an attempt to peacefully transition power. Whether you "meant to do that" is irrelevant

I don't think so. This is the kind of situation that the insurrection and seditious conspiracy laws cover. Seditious conspiracy is a 'lesser' charge than treason yet it most definitely requires motive.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

They all knew they were there to stop the certification of the election. They were trying to pressure Pence into overturning the election, or they were going to stop the proceedings themselves.

Agree, but it still matters whether you think you're overturning an election, or undoing the overturning of one. If someone fires a bullet from a gun at a corpse, it matters a great deal whether they think it's a living human being or if they know it's a dead one.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The Constitution specifically denotes what treason is in the United States:

Good thing you are providing the basic definition. Always good to level set, allow for any clarifications, and avoid any misunderstanding.

[Lathum]

Those people on 1/6 were certainly levying war, so glad we agree it was treason.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I generally agree, but that is explicitly not the point being made by people I was responding to. If someone says they are getting off too easy, I agree with that. When they say 'why aren't they getting the death penalty', that's a horse of a different color.



.

I have yet to see anyone ask why they aren't getting the death penalty.

[whomario]

*slow blink* pic.twitter.com/wQXHvcDiFX

— chris evans (@notcapnamerica) July 19, 2023

This whole thing is done and over, there's no going back for vast swaths of the population (not just the US), at least not in the next 20 years or so. And it'll get worse before it may get better.

[GrantDawg]

I have literally read almost all of those opinions. I didn't get it from the news, or any other source but straight from the courts own dockets. Many of those judges were Trump appointees, but not a single one could find any reason to even issue a stay. That's not a high bar to hit. And if you read the pleas that the Republicans attorneys wrote you would see why. Pretty much nothing that they presented on Newsmax or any other alternative news source got into those pleas, because the attorneys knew none of it could stand up to judicial scrutiny. As it was, the garbage they did use cost some attorneys fines and disbarment. You can't overthrow an election on rumors and "feelings."

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Kodos]

It was interesting how quickly "elections have consequences" disappeared after Trump lost.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Kodos

It was interesting how quickly "elections have consequences" disappeared after Trump lost.

it's as if you didn't realize Kang is a hypocrit

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

This could probably go in any number of threads. I read this article half laughing and half shaking my head. Most of these people have, at best, done nothing to stop this from happening, and at worst, willingly played right into it. Feigning incredulity at what constituents believe is such a joke. In fact, the way some of the quotes acknowledge its "not just rednecks" certainly smacks of Hillary's "deplorables" comment. It's like, "we knew the uneducated racists would easily buy it, but I can't believe educated people do too!"

GOP senators rattled by radical conservative populism | The Hill

That article was really something. The GOP has created such a Frankenstein monster.

[Ghost Econ]

Originally Posted by Kodos

It was interesting how quickly "elections have consequences" disappeared after Trump lost.

It's a two party system, you have to vote for one of us.

[CrimsonFox]

Fucking Murkowski is such a liar

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

those people on 1/6 were certainly levying war, so glad we agree it was treason.

No they weren't.

Originally Posted by Lathum

I have yet to see anyone ask why they aren't getting the death penalty.

Here:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

the trials should start with the supposition of "so, explain why we shouldn't hang you" and then work back from that.

Originally Posted by Lathum

I agree. I would be totally OK with every one of then being executed.

[Lathum]

That’s not asking why someone isn’t getting isn’t getting the penalty. Stop trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Also, if you don’t think these people thought they were gearing up for war you weren’t paying attention. Do you go to a peaceful protest in full body armor and erect a gallows?

[Brian Swartz]

Nobody said it was a peaceful protest. There's a reason we have the lesser charges of insurrection and seditious conspiracy on the books.

I think what I quoted is very nearly exactly asking why someone isn't getting the penalty. I think we'll agree to disagree on that point, and possibly it may be time to accept that we don't see eye to eye on the basic meaning of the language.