Indeed, I enjoyed that. 
Thank-you.
Yeah, I hope this Boenert thing doesn’t gain traction. Going from sex worker to an elected official is something to be applauded. And not demeaned.
Liberals would look like real hypocrites if they took her the task over this.
Suggests possible fraud???
It makes sense, though. Targeting a group with track record for being gullible.
Becoming a sex worker would be a step up for many elected officials.
I hope it does get traction, but only if Boebert owns it and conservatives decide that actually they were always fine with sex work and abortions.
Hey! What are you doing, trying to be reasonable? We’ll have none of that here!
I heard a similar discussion on NPR.
Evidence and testimony are strong that Trump knew very well that he lost and there was no fraud. But he refused to admit it (and still hasn’t) and lied to supporters asking for money to fight the election results. He then passed that money on to other campaigns.
He could potentially face serious charges for that. But I think it throws doubt on his complicity with the insurrection. He might be negligent in saying things that encouraged people to try to overturn the election by force, but wouldn’t have actively tried to make it happen because he knew damn well there’s no chance of it working.
Ewwwwwww. Not for all the gold in Fort Knox.
Sometimes people encourage violence not because they think the violence will accomplish some purpose, but simply because they like to watch people destroy stuff.
“They’re all doing it for MEEEEE!!!”
All the indications I’ve seen so far is that, if anything, it’s a “Cawthorn II Electric Boogaloo” hit job from the right. I’m not sure what she did to provoke it, though.
He was actively working to get election results overturned in multiple states. He attended the “War Room” remotely.
- He knew he lost.
- He knew there was no fraud.
- He tried to abort the election tally with violence because it was the only option left to him after the SoS’s refused to “find him” votes and the lawsuits filed by Powell, et al., were basically laughed out of court.
He was reliably and clearly informed that there was no evidence of game changing fraud. He chose to ignore this information.
If it can be shown that his staff - with his approval - cooperated with insurrectionist groups to disrupt the Electoral count procedure, threaten sitting politicians and intimidate Mike Pence into abandoning his constitutional duties, then he should be prosecuted and never allowed to hold office again.
I think his gang did just that, too.
This is irrelevant. The success or failure of the attempt does not lessen the seriousness of the act. He will be charged for his intent to act, if it can be adequately shown that he knew or should have known that he lost the election and proceeded with his insurrection anyway.
There is also a concept in the law known as willful blindness. It means that if a reasonable person would or should have known something to be true after being repeatedly told a particular truth, and they chose instead to deliberately ignore this truth, then it is not a defense to say that you believed a falsehood.
As I heard noted Constitutional expert, Professor Lawrence Tribe, explain in words to this effect: “You don’t get to plant yourself comfortably into a reality of your own making and pretend that’s a lawful defense. It’s not.”
Please don’t take my quote out of context to make it look like I said something I didn’t. That pisses me off and as a mod you should know better. 
Clearly I agree with you if you don’t cut out a key part of my post.
I fear I fully don’t understand the point you are making, then. I would never deliberately do what you are saying I did. I apologize if I did that, but the point is still not apparent to me, even after closely rereading your post.
My point was that I now doubt that he actively conspired with the insurrectionists, but regardless he could still face serious charges. Potentially even prison time (though I’m not holding out hope).
That’s basically the same thing you said, except through selective quoting you made it appear that I thought there is no legal risk to him.
I agree that from a legal perspective it may be irrelevant whether he was actively complicit in the insurrection or just helped it along through reckless and irresponsible actions. It just changed my perspective.
Heck, I think it’s much worse that he knew all along.
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
Meanwhile, on the schadenfreude front…
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/15/politics/steve-bannon-hearing/index.html
Ok, thanks for taking the time to clarify. Again, I apologize for misconstruing your meaning. I can misread and misunderstand things as much as anyone else on the board, and I hope you appreciate that. Being a mod doesn’t salvage us from making such errors in judgment – as many will tell you!
I will say that I believe when the connections are made to Trump through the layer of people who were actively interacting with the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers, meaning Bannon, Flynn, Stone, etc., it will demonstrate that Trump was indeed speaking with the actual insurrectionists through those intermediaries. It’s how Trump has always done things – and why a RICO approach to this prosecution is so useful.
It’s all good, you’re still one of my favorites. 
We’ll see. I would love if they nail him on something finally.