US Politics: Hell Yes THEY Were Trying to Overthrow the Government

[Gaston de Foix]

On 8/19/2023 at 10:18 AM, Mindwalker said:

Ken Chesebro at the Capitol with Alex Jones during the jan6 attack wearing, [sic] destroying any argument that he was just an attorney who came up with the fake elector fraudulent scheme. I bet Jack Smith is watching...

 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, why the fuck didn't the DOJ already know this by tracking his phone data? And if they did, where is the indictment? Where is the professional disciplinary complaint? 

For that matter, where is Ken Chesebro's presence at the riot reflected in the Jan. 6 report?

The really shocking thing is that CNN is revealing this information in August 2023. 

And what is really important is not just that he was there, but that he was playing an important role quarterbacking with Alex Jones the attack on the capitol, receiving instructions on his phone throughout from someone and ensuring Alex Jones left the scene soon before the riot turned violent and breached the capitol: 

The whole basis of the DOJ investigation from 2021 onwards was that it was bottom-up, painstaking and time-consuming but thorough and based on well-established investigative principles. 

In fact, it was and is a casual, slapdash, incomplete and amateurish response to an attack on the seat of American democracy  by a sitting American president and his co-conspirators.  And only a local DA in Georgia has the cojones to call out this wicked and traitorous scheme in full.   

Fani Willis went to Emory Law.  Ken Chesebro went to Harvard Law.  Of the four Supreme Court clerks in the Senate, three were fully implicated in the attempt to overthrow the Constitution. 

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.  

[Larry of the Lawn]

On 8/19/2023 at 3:53 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’m not too crazy about this terminology.

.

What's the issue?

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

23 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

What's the issue?

 

There’s no utility in substitution of langue here and it sounds like overly academic jargon that’d just turn people off and be a diversion from a more substantive discussion.

It reminds me of when people tried to make Latinx a thing to and be inclusive to women and enbies, when Spanish language conventions would make that extremely awkward, most Latin people haven’t heard of it/don’t use it, and Latin is already generally neutral.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

36 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

In fact, it was and is a casual, slapdash, incomplete and amateurish response to an attack on the seat of American democracy  by a sitting American president and his co-conspirators.  And only a local DA in Georgia has the cojones to call out this wicked and traitorous scheme in full.   

Fani Willis went to Emory Law.  Ken Chesebro went to Harvard Law.  Of the four Supreme Court clerks in the Senate, three were fully implicated in the attempt to overthrow the Constitution. 

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.  

It's the US government....
 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

52 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

There’s no utility in substitution of langue here and it sounds like overly academic jargon that’d just turn people off and be a diversion from a more substantive discussion.

It reminds me of when people tried to make Latinx a thing to and be inclusive to women and enbies, when Spanish language conventions would make that extremely awkward, most Latin people haven’t heard of it/don’t use it, and Latin is already generally neutral.

Well maybe consider the stigma around the word "homeless" (how they are treated by any authority - police, potential employer, etc) in addition to the many opportunities for inaccuracy: many "homeless" people have a home  and a community, just not a legal address or a solid roof over their head.  They may live in a vehicle or tent or be squatting.  

So unhoused vs homeless is actually nothing like latinx- it's more accurate for what's being discussed and doesn't come with all the baggage attached to it.

Edited August 21, 2023 by Larry of the Lawn

[Varysblackfyre321]

14 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Well maybe consider the stigma around the word "homeless" (how they are treated by any authority - police, potential employer, etc)

There’s certainly a stigma—that wouldn’t be helped with a replacement of terms here. If the common use for people who don’t have a home/house/apt, to take shelter in at night then the stigma will just carry over.

And if a person is in a position of needing to explain their living situation this line of terminology will prompt more questions because not everyone is caught up on the new progressive verbiage.

I get the good intent, and if a homeless person chooses the unhorsed label to describe themselves I won’t fault them. 

14 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

in addition to the many opportunities for inaccuracy: many "homeless" people have a home  and a community, just not a legal address.  

This feels a bit pedantic? The bolded is generally what people mean in describing whose homeless.

Though if I wanted to out-pedantic you could I not say unhoused is inaccurate because not everyone with a fixed legal address lives in a house?

Edited August 21, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[LongRider]

17 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

So unhoused vs homeless is actually nothing like latinx- it's more accurate for what's being discussed and doesn't come with all the baggage attached to it.

Thanks for your clear explanation, Larry, as I didn't reply to @Varysblackfyre321 when he made his comment.  While I understand the concept of many things, I don't express them well, so don't debate and argue much.  I appreciate you doing the heavy lifting.    

[Gorn]

There is a valid distinction in meaning between "unhoused" and "homeless". A barista who lives in a van because she doesn't want to or cannot afford to pay rent is "unhoused" but not "homeless" in the commonly understood meaning of the term.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, why the fuck didn't the DOJ already know this by tracking his phone data? And if they did, where is the indictment? Where is the professional disciplinary complaint? 

For that matter, where is Ken Chesebro's presence at the riot reflected in the Jan. 6 report?

We were wondering that last night too. It's not as if this hasn't been available.

https://www.salon.com/2023/08/18/new-video-aligned-attorney-kenneth-cheseboro-caught-with-alex-jones-at-capitol-on-jan-6/

I do tend toward blaming Merrick Garland, at least partly.  He REALLY didn't want investigations or indictments or trials at all.

Edited August 21, 2023 by Zorral

[Gaston de Foix]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

We were wondering that last night too. It's not as if this hasn't been available.

https://www.salon.com/2023/08/18/new-video-aligned-attorney-kenneth-cheseboro-caught-with-alex-jones-at-capitol-on-jan-6/

I do tend toward blaming Merrick Garland, at least partly.  He REALLY didn't want investigations or indictments or trials at all.

Yeah. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year/

[Mindwalker]

TFG's bond has been set at ... only 200.000 bucks?

 

[Zorral]

1 minute ago, Mindwalker said:

200.000 bucks

And the others, only a 100K. ?

[ThinkerX]

The Bond for Trump does seem low, but given his past history, I figure there are fairly high chances of two things.

First, he either won't pay the Bond (because he's Trump) or the check will bounce (again, because he's Trump)

Second, he will break the conditions attached to the Bond before the month is out, or failing that, by the end of next month, again, because he is Trump.

To this, we can add highly effective fund raisers appearing no later than tomorrow pleading for money to pay Trump's Bond.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

He's already broken the conditions of a previous bond. Face it, people have been going light on him because they're afraid of what his supporters might do. It's some brownshirts shit. 

Edited August 21, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Varysblackfyre321]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

He's already broken the conditions of a previous bond. Face it, people have been going light on him because they're afraid of what his supporters might do. It's some brownshirts shit. 

True. Fascists only get emboldened with even minor concessions. 

[Mindwalker]

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

He's already broken the conditions of a previous bond. Face it, people have been going light on him because they're afraid of what his supporters might do. It's some brownshirts shit. 

No, no! Nobody is above the law!

I don't think that's the reason though. There's more brownshirt danger when he's free and happily threatening and inciting...

Edited August 21, 2023 by Mindwalker

[Zorral]

35 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

There's more brownshirt danger when he's free and happily threatening and inciting...

 That got clear when his minions started to get prison sentences.  The more of Them, and Him etc., get put in prison the less They will be doing this shyte.  It certainly worked in reverse in Nazi germany -- the less They got taken down by the justice system, the wilder They got.

[Zorral]

Hmmm.  The initial reporting didn't include all these restrictions on his behaviors on and off social media.  Not that he's observed those restrictions imposed on him in other cases.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-s-release-conditions-200-000-bond-social-media-restrictions/ar-AA1

Quote

 

... Trump’s legal team agreed to a $200,000 bond in the Georgia election interference case on Monday, according to court documents, along with conditions of release that include rigorous restrictions on his use of social media.

Among the agreed-upon conditions, Trump must not violate any laws in Georgia or elsewhere, he must appear in court as directed, he must not communicate about the facts of the case with fellow co-defendants – except through his legal team – and he must not intimidate co-defendants or witnesses. The order stipulates that such intimidation – “no direct or indirect threat of any nature” – includes posts on social media or reposts of posts made by others on social media.

Trump’s bond agreement comes hours after his former attorney, John Eastman, agreed to a $100,000 bond, along with Scott Hall, a bail bondsman, at $10,000. Both face conditions that generally mirror Trump’s – except on the intimidation provision.

 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

There’s certainly a stigma—that wouldn’t be helped with a replacement of terms here. If the common use for people who don’t have a home/house/apt, to take shelter in at night then the stigma will just carry over.

 

Fuck it let's just say "hobos"

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 hours ago, Gorn said:

There is a valid distinction in meaning between "unhoused" and "homeless". A barista who lives in a van because she doesn't want to or cannot afford to pay rent is "unhoused" but not "homeless" in the commonly understood meaning of the term.

I don’t know if that’s a distinction worth upholding—I do think it’d provide a greater utility to expand the notion of homelessness  to things like that. There are sever negative connotations to homelessness true. That can only motivate a more robust civic response.