4 ms·

> That is flat-out not true. It actually is true that there are "lots of sworn first-person statements, which aren't hearsay." This isn't to say there are none

> That is flat-out not true. It actually is true that there are "lots of sworn first-person statements, which aren't hearsay." This isn't to say there are none that are hearsay. > I haven't combed through every piece of evidence in every case, but a lot of "sworn first-person statements" basically amounted to hearsay or other statements that could not legally be sustained as evidence. Right, and we could ignore them and talk about the ones where people testify to things that happened to them or in their presence but its much easier to respond to evidence you don't like by ignoring it and debunking "evidence" that's easy to respond to. > The first set of cases did reach that stage I'm not sure what you're referring to as "the first set of cases" but many of the cases were dismissed before evidence was heard. That means you can't faithfully dismiss the evidence on the basis of a dismissed court case because the court never looked at the evidence. > The people who are alleging this conspiracy--first and foremost Trump himself--are unwilling to sustain any evidence to the contrary. I disagree and if you could present evidence to the contrary we could perhaps resolve this. > The Trump campaign and affiliates have lost 62 lawsuits in the past two months (and that's not counting subsequent losses on appeal). Refer to my statement above. Most of those never even examined the evidence. > For the first time in 230 years, a mob has broken into Congress Its not that big of a deal, the last time a mob broke into congress was 2018. > has broken into Congress to commit sedition Actually they are trying (in vain) to avoid disenfranchisement. Or if you prefer not to appear to take a position on the object-level issue, its merely a "mostly peaceful protest." > Why? It's not because we didn't demonstrate the concerns were being taken seriously. that most certainly is why. > It's because way too many people were willing to indulge a delusional conspiracy theory that was ungrounded in truth, and to pretend that frivolous lawsuits that were clearly contrary to all prior precedent fanned [2] that delusion. I like how you compared the idea that people might cheat in an election to a delusion, when people cheat in elections all the time and its probably more properly considered delusional when someone insists (without evidence) that there was no fraud and all these people asserting fraud on the basis of evidence are delusional. > If two or more persons in any State or Territory [...] conspire to [...] by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, [...] they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. Would that apply to conspiracy to violate election law?

jcranmer 6y ago
> Actually they are trying (in vain) to avoid disenfranchisement. They broke the law. They committed sedition--I copy-pasted the actual definition of the law. It doesn't matter why they were trying to break law, they still violated the law. They ignored all proper legal avenues to take the law into their own lands. You cannot in good faith ever claim to support the rule of law if you support what they did. Let me put it like this: if I were to kill the President, I would be a murderer. It doesn't matter if I think he's a deranged nutcase whose continued presidency would irrevocably damage the country: I would still be committing first-degree murder, and will still deserve nothing less than to suffer the full consequences of that crime. > Would that apply to conspiracy to violate election law? There are only 51 electoral vote certificates for the 2020 presidential election. There were only ever 51 electoral vote certificates. Some cosplayers did pretend to make electoral vote certificates to compete against, but cosplaying an electoral vote does not meet the legal requirements to create a valid electoral vote certificate. Congress's job is to count those electoral vote certificates. 3 USC §15 lays out what Congress was supposed to do yesterday. There is nothing that they did that would violate their actions. I'm not going to respond to all of your points because my blood pressure can't take this, but I will close out with this comment: what happened yesterday is the electoral equivalent of lynching. Even if you think it is justified, it is still an extralegal attempt by a mob to execute their will, damning the due process of anyone they come across.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > They broke the law. They committed sedition--I copy-pasted the actual definition of the law. It doesn't matter why they were trying to break law, they still violated the law. This presumes that your perspective on the alleged fraud is factually correct. If we don't presume the facts of the matter one way or the other, it looks like they may have been petitioning their government for redress. > Let me put it like this: if I were to kill the President, I would be a murderer. It doesn't matter if I think he's a deranged nutcase whose continued presidency would irrevocably damage the country: I would still be committing first-degree murder I think the same argument applies to vote fraud. It doesn't matter how much you hate the president (or think him incompetent, or whatever), vote fraud is vote fraud. > Some cosplayers did pretend to make electoral vote certificates to compete against, but cosplaying an electoral vote does not meet the legal requirements to create a valid electoral vote certificate. So they are trying to prevent the cosplayers from successfully impersonating actual electors. > I'm not going to respond to all of your points because my blood pressure can't take this, but I will close out with this comment: what happened yesterday is the electoral equivalent of lynching. Thats hyperbolic and undemocratic. > Even if you think it is justified, it is still an extralegal attempt by a mob to execute their will, damning the due process of anyone they come across. Yeah I didn't support their actions but its kind of like the protests last summer: riots are the language of the unheard.

jcranmer 6y ago

> Actually they are trying (in vain) to avoid disenfranchisement. They broke the law. They committed sedition--I copy-pasted the actual definition of the law. It doesn't matter why they were trying to break law, they still violated the law. They ignored all proper legal avenues to take the law into their own lands. You cannot in good faith ever claim to support the rule of law if you support what they did. Let me put it like this: if I were to kill the President, I would be a murderer. It doesn't matter if I think he's a deranged nutcase whose continued presidency would irrevocably damage the country: I would still be committing first-degree murder, and will still deserve nothing less than to suffer the full consequences of that crime. > Would that apply to conspiracy to violate election law? There are only 51 electoral vote certificates for the 2020 presidential election. There were only ever 51 electoral vote certificates. Some cosplayers did pretend to make electoral vote certificates to compete against, but cosplaying an electoral vote does not meet the legal requirements to create a valid electoral vote certificate. Congress's job is to count those electoral vote certificates. 3 USC §15 lays out what Congress was supposed to do yesterday. There is nothing that they did that would violate their actions. I'm not going to respond to all of your points because my blood pressure can't take this, but I will close out with this comment: what happened yesterday is the electoral equivalent of lynching. Even if you think it is justified, it is still an extralegal attempt by a mob to execute their will, damning the due process of anyone they come across.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> They broke the law. They committed sedition--I copy-pasted the actual definition of the law. It doesn't matter why they were trying to break law, they still violated the law. This presumes that your perspective on the alleged fraud is factually correct. If we don't presume the facts of the matter one way or the other, it looks like they may have been petitioning their government for redress. > Let me put it like this: if I were to kill the President, I would be a murderer. It doesn't matter if I think he's a deranged nutcase whose continued presidency would irrevocably damage the country: I would still be committing first-degree murder I think the same argument applies to vote fraud. It doesn't matter how much you hate the president (or think him incompetent, or whatever), vote fraud is vote fraud. > Some cosplayers did pretend to make electoral vote certificates to compete against, but cosplaying an electoral vote does not meet the legal requirements to create a valid electoral vote certificate. So they are trying to prevent the cosplayers from successfully impersonating actual electors. > I'm not going to respond to all of your points because my blood pressure can't take this, but I will close out with this comment: what happened yesterday is the electoral equivalent of lynching. Thats hyperbolic and undemocratic. > Even if you think it is justified, it is still an extralegal attempt by a mob to execute their will, damning the due process of anyone they come across. Yeah I didn't support their actions but its kind of like the protests last summer: riots are the language of the unheard.