Oh, I didn’t mean just by saying that. I meant by the entire structure of what that sort of statement is trying to do; including but not limited to specific statements to specific people.
And I believe it’s ‘at least one member of the conspiracy’, not everyone in it, who has to do more than just talk. Seems to me that quite a few of them have.
I also wonder if a case could be made that this latest statement was an overt act in furtherance of an ongoing conspiracy [27pp PDF] that first made its mark on 1/6.
This doesn’t have to be ‘another one,’ necessarily, does it?
IANAL.
ETA:
Section 371 has two prongs, alike but for a single exception. The first, more frequently prosecuted, requires agreement, overt act, and an underlying federal criminal offense. The elements of the second prong, sometimes styled conspiracy to defraud the United States, do not require an underlying federal criminal offense. The elements of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 are: (1) an agreement of two or more persons; (2) to defraud the United States; and (3) an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy committed by one of the conspirators.65 The “fraud covered by the statute reaches any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful functions of any department of the Government” 66 by “deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.” 67 The plot must be directed against the United States or some federal entity; a scheme to defraud the recipient of federal funds is not sufficient.68 The scheme may be designed to deprive the United States of money or property, but it need not be so; a plot calculated to frustrate the functions of an entity of the United States will suffice.69
According to this interpretation, the passage of the 12th Amendment abolished the Constitution.
IA also NAL; but that’s what I was thinking.
(Though I’d say that all those acts of harassment of election officials also made their mark – certainly on those of the officials who had their lives upended by threats.)
I assumed that @Skypist meant ‘other than by the process described in the Constitution for amending the Constitution.’
Trump doesn’t make any sign of intending to try to go through the amendment process.
This is just silly. Amending the Constitution in the manner in which the Constitution itself prescribes obviously does not abolish or suspend the Constitution. Terminating the rules, regulations, and articles found within the Constitution based on the imagined grievances of a megalomaniacal narcissist is a whole 'nuther thing.
I very, very much doubt that. I doubt that he has much more than a passing third graders knowledge of the constitution and what it even is.
EXCEPT it is preventing him from breaking the law. But then I doubt he knows anything about law either.
Yes, I did mean without changing it in the manner prescribed by the Constitution, not just Trump and his base and allies “demand” he be installed or a new election held based on his claims of fraud, neither of which action is prescribed in the Constitution. Making a change like in the way the Constitution requires would be pretty unlikely, and I don’t think Trump was proposing that.
I take it as another attempt on his part to encourage another insurrection, and if that happened and succeeded, we likely wouldn’t have a “president” or any other part of the Constitution anymore.
Trump would be perfectly happy with a civil war “Look how they love me, they are dying for me!!!”. As long as he can watch it on TV.
“I don’t care if it’s constipational or not! I wanna be President again!”
So instead of upholding and defending the Constitution, Trump wants to defold and upend the Constitution?
Much like the case with some “Christians” vis-a-vis the Bible, the Constitution is given the standing of a sort of fetish object to be idolized as somehow imbued with power in and of its own existence rather than from its content, that they wave around performatively to justify themselves and invoke that power. But they have never really critically read it or any of the educated scholars who have written about it for centuries.
I strongly suspect that Trump doesn’t really understand that there is such a thing as truth, and such things as facts. He thinks that if he just shouts loudly enough, the world will bend around to give him whatever he wants at the moment.
This technique seems to have actually worked pretty well for him for most of his life, due to the financial and social position that he started off with. It must have been and must be a source of massive and continuous frustration to him that it hasn’t worked as well since January 2016: first Congress wouldn’t always do what he wanted, then electoral officials wouldn’t always do what he wanted, then the courts, even the Supremes, wouldn’t do what he wanted. I don’t think he fully understands why it’s not working. There must have been people, all through his life, who wouldn’t do what he wanted – but before, if he shouted loudly enough and/or waved enough money and/or lawsuits around, somebody else would show up who would do it.
that’s good - well done sir.
Actually, no. Trump’s entire political career has shown that giving him repeated opportunities to obfuscate the record doesn’t benefit the truth or the public interest. It’s just playing into fascist populist demagoguery.
Of course what he said was ambiguous, because, as always, he and audience neither understand nor care to understand the law.
Furthermore pretending that it isn’t clear exactly what he means just gives him continued room to continue demagoguing.
He means exactly what I he seems to mean: “The law and traditionally accepted standards of behavior do not apply to me or, if you support me, to you. We are always tight because we are the real Americans.”
Journalists are not being responsible if they treat him as a run of the mill politician. They should be treating him like someone openly trying to overturn the rule of law and take over the country by any means.
At some point his getting up in public on a regular basis and strongly hinting to large groups of people that someone should overthrow the government amounts to a kind of stochastic conspiracy to overthrow the government under 18 U.S.C. §2385. I don’t think it’s been directly tested but it would represent a major weakness in our national security structure if the government could not make a case based on this evidence.
And the idea that the responsibility falls on a journalist to make his statement clear is silly. The responsibility falls on the grown ass man making a statement, to make his statement clear.
It’s like holding a mob boss immune from prosecution unless you can find an unambiguous and explicit order to “go out there and cooperate with me and each other to commit crimes in violation of the law.”
This latest one seems like desperation, I wonder if his call will be followed with a defense that the constitution was terminated, he is now installed as president and pardoned himself.
We must read different newspapers. I must have read the word baseless, applied to DJT’s claim, something on the order of a thousand times in hard news stories. There is no similarity with how, say, they treated GW Bush on Iraq.
As for the thread topic, DJT is daring the Justice Department to arrest him for disloyalty to the country, a type of change that depends on judgments concerning intent, and which I think would have low risk of a unanimous jury verdict. Whereas if he was arrested to for mishandling documents, he might actually be convicted.
I don’t think the Justice Dept. would arrest him for a non-crime like this. They are not that dumb.