Unsigned Trump order told Pentagon to seize voting machines

I do not care if you claim you did not vote for him. You obviously fanatically favor him, with that act about questioning if that document not breaking any laws and pretend it wasn't while it was. You pushed that narrative until you couldn't.

I've told you over and over that Donald as the head of the government is responsible for the actions of his subordinates. And that's besides that we all are seeing the proof that he tried all he could to cover up. A person who is innocent wouldn't be hiding anything.

Lock him up.

 

I don't care what you do or do not care about. My not calling for him to be locked up over not having committed any provable crime has nothing to do with with any favor towards him and everything to do with honesty and respect for the law. That thing you claim to be defending while also declaring someone lose their right to due process.

Trump did not sign this document, we know that for a fact. What we do not know is if he ordered the document be drafted or if he was even aware of it. But I'm not going to condemn someone off of a chance of a maybe. Not only that, this does not fall under 2384. No legal proceedings would have been delayed, hindered, or prevented. So no, you haven't cited any broken laws.

 

You're ignoring that the guy is responsible for the actions of his subordinates.
You're ignoring that the guy does everything to prevent us from finding this out.
And 2384 is (among things) about if 2 or more people conspiring to overthrow the government.
(and no. I'm not going to cite a law. You're required to know it)

So you're just dishonest to claim the document doesn't fall under it with that explanation of yours.
And we all can fill in the dots that this obvious dishonestly is out of love for Donald.
While 2384 doesn't say some document must be signed. So you're dragging in things that are not relevant.
And we all can fill in the dots why you again drag in things that are not relevant.


LOCK

HIM

UP!

 

2384 is about destroying or overthrowing the government. So again, no. Nothing about this falls under it. Maybe you should educate yourself on that law you claim to be required to know.

All of this boils down to your hatred for a man that doesn't agree with your ideals. And on that alone you demand he be locked up without due process, a right every American citizen has, all the while screaming about justice. It's either ironic or hypocritical, it all depends on just how self aware you are.

 

Right, so because a thread I started was worded incorrectly, now CNN and MSNBC haven't lost 80% of their viewership.
Like that makes any sense.

 

How would this have overthrown the government? You're going to have to explain how that works. Can you prove it was for sedition or was it for him to analyze the results? You're making an assumption based on your own bias. And that's all it is because nothing ever came of it.

Your obsession with who I may be infatuated with aside, you're the one wanting to subvert the legal system and jail someone without due process. A vital part of our democracy. I would formally like to ask you to quit trying to subvert our justice system.

 

OMG! An unsigned order!!!! OMG!

This thread is too funny. The outrage is pure stupidity.

 

Once again, missing the point, completely.

The Point ISN'T Whether or not it was signed.

The Point IS:
That certain people in Trump's Inner Circle were convinced that Trump was such a Conspiratorial IDIOT (who would do anything to stay in Power) that it was even drafted in the First Place!

 

I note you're no longer replying to the law I mentioned as if it somehow doesn't apply. You're just out of the blue questioning me now how that document would play out. Well, Redwolf, that's described in the link of OP. You can direct your questioning to the author of the article of the link.

You're just making it all up that I do not want due process.

And you're again not responding to my point of:
That Donald as head of the government is responsible for the actions of his subordinates.
And that Donald is doing all he could to cover up what we know now.


Lock him up!

 

Serioisly Notme, your calls for locking him without a trial is undermining our justice system. With you trying to deny someone one of the core democratic values of our nation, it could be considered sedition. Please stop before they lock you up for conspiracy.

 

You asked me what law he might have broken. I mentioned it. You resorted to lying about what that law is about. I corrected you. You then dropped it.

Applying that law, is absolutely not undermining the justice system.
I never stated Donald may not have a trial.
You're just making up whatever.

 

You are making a fool of yourself.

If Trump had signed, martial law would have been enforced in 5 states.

The MAGA's will really do anything to make sure Trump is in charge.

The Cult.

 

Oh thank god you dropped that seditionous talk of locking Trump up without a trial. I was worried for you there. Glad to hear you're no longer trying to undermine our justice system.


Anyway, you're still incorrect about the law. Well, I won't say that. An argument can be made that it falls under 2384 but you have to prove that Trump's intent was to overthrow our government and not simply for analysis. That's an uphill battle in itself. Anyway, nothing I stated about the law is incorrect. Here it is in it's entirety. Everything I mentioned is listed below.


If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

 

“Worded incorrectly “??

It was the OPPOSITE of the truth! I’m not saying you were a liar - I expect you made a mistake.

I didn’t comment on viewership of networks. I was commenting on the irony of you - of all people - talking about “fake news”!

Thanks for the laugh. You genuinely made me smile with your ducking and dodging.

 

Awww, did that thread hurt your feelings. Lets all give the world a moment of pause so you can get over it. lol

 

Didn’t hurt my feelings - you were the one who criticized Democrats for doing something - then you disappeared when it was pointed out that it was actually Republicans, not Democrats who were doing the things you claimed were so awful.
Pretty embarrassing for you.

 

Is it that hard for you to get over?
Sorry for your pain

 

Nothing for me to get over. I’m laughing.

Have you owned up to your embarrassing mistake?

 

Yeah, I made a mistake. I own it. So now what. You want to try and wear it like some badge of honor?
Help yourself.
If it has such an effect on you to find a single post that was wrong, you must not see many of them.
When you get into the end zone, act like you've been their before.

 

The entire theme that I said Donald may not have a trial, is YOUR alternative reality.
We all know this.

Aha... and so suddenly you agree that there is an argument to be made that this document was about overthrowing the government. Well well.

And you're still not responding to that:
Donald was responsible for his subordinates at that time.
Donald went all the way to the supreme court in an attempt to cover this all up.

I came up with this.

 

HB, instead of laughing about various sources (although the same information is on countless other ones but whatever), I have a question for you.

Let's say that we just overlook the following...

* Trump said he would walk with them, but didn't, and went somewhere safe to be able to disavow them later.
* makeshift guillotine and chants of "Hang Pence" (which Trump defended).
* scaling of walls and breaking windows and doors.
* stolen government property from Pelosi's and other official's offices.
* weapons and ammunition found on some of rioters and in some rioters' vehicles.
* law enforcement telling the rioters not to breach the doors.
* defiling public property with urine and feces in areas not designed for that (biohazard).
* demands to officers inside the building to be taken to Pence (the officer steered them in a different direction).

But, let's pretend NONE of the above happened. Also, let's go ahead and throw in the Pelosi blame-shift. So in our hypothetical situation, the rioters did NOT do any of the above and Trump requested and was denied National Guard back-up by Pelosi. Erase all of that.



Here's my question...How do you explain why Trump watched the rioters beat Capitol police officers and ignored Pence's and Pelosi's calls to engage back-up support?

 

Quote the article..

 

I know you're mocking this but I'm trying to communicate with you because you seem to be a bit more sane than some other Trump supporters and I find their hatred to be exhausting.

That's not how the law works. It's irrelevant if anyone brandished a weapon or not or threatened someone claiming they had a weapon and didn't. All of those are crimes. And, the intent doesn't have to be completed. It's still a crime.

For example, if someone went to a bank and told all the customers and employees except one to get on the floor and demanded the one employee to fill a bag with cash...but someone tripped the silent alarm and the police arrived before the bag of cash is handed over, they would arrest the person for attempted robbery. If the robber said they had a gun or if he just had his hand in his pocket to look like he had one is not relevant either. It would be considered "armed robbery" (even if nobody ever **saw** a gun).

The **question** as to the matter of our criminal codes is "How would a reasonable person respond in the given situation?"


So...let's say all of the above took place but one of the employees or customers was trained in mixed martial arts and was able to subdue the robber until the police arrived.

Using the base question "The brave MMA did NOT respond in a way that would be viewed as "reasonable" for the average person." Good examples of this are reported when we hear about a brave employee subduing an out-of-control customer or going after a thief. In almost all situations, the employee would be terminated because that is NOT how a "reasonable" person would respond in that situation. There are various permutations with the highest breach being an employee who is not a security guard on the clock at the time the altercation happened is an insurance risk.

None of that matters in terms of our criminal codes. I forgot who you were responding to but I'm almost certain it's not someone that was actually at the Capitol riot, therefore that poster's fear for the nation is irrelevant. This is exactly why judges will deny requests for the media to be in the courtroom during certain cases and/or sequester a jury to keep them from receiving outside information or influence about a case.

Therefore, using the foundational question...in MATTERS OF THE LAW...how would a reasonable person have responded in the given situation?

1. Officers inside the building created a perimeter around the doors that were being breached.
2. Others officers inside the building got the elected officials evacuated and barricaded inside various offices.
3. Vice-President Pence and a few others were taken out through an underground walkway (or something like that).
4. Vice-President Pence and SOH Pelosi contacted POTUS Trump to implore him to engage back-up immediately.
5. POTUS Trump did not do that. VP Pence made the call to engage back-up.

#1-#4 Are all actions that a reasonable person would take when faced with this situation.
#5 Is not.

It has nothing to do with politics or my disdain for Trump. These are matters clearly addressed in our local, state and Federal criminal codes. Further, within the applicable criminals codes (and my bank robbery example) crimes against law enforcement personnel usually increases charges and both local and Federal laws would apply because the Capitol is a Federal building.

Example...

Let's say the totality of the riot happened outside the building itself. The applicable laws would pertain to just the mob itself.

Then add...

Attacking and disobeying law enforcement officers would up the charges.
Breaching the building and property damage to a Federal building adds Federal charges.
Theft of private property is another charge.
Theft of government property is on top of that.
Efforts to auction government property adds charges.
Officer Sicknick returned to the station and died later that day. That would be taken into consideration.
And, each of the four Capitol police officers that committed suicide as a direct/indirect link to the riot is taken into consideration.

So, it really is something **more** than a Leftist's imagination.

The question here isn't if those three (and there were more with quite a bit of weaponry) people with guns were "going to take over the USA".

Their stated chants were finding Pence and dealing with him directly. I'm sure you saw like we all did that some of them had a makeshift hangman's noose. In this situation, that apparatus is construed to be a weapon as well. It's irrelevant if they used it or not (just like the bank robber not actually using a gun).

This was never about his supporters, themselves, *taking* over the country. Trump needed a way to stop the certification so he could tie this up in court to prevent Biden and Harris from being inaugurated. Trump's intent was to stop the certification process so he could have a legal basis to challenge the reports from each State's Election Board and most likely would have held that up in court leaving our country extremely vulnerable to outside forces. This was extremely critical and precarious at that specific point in time because he had already signed the agreement to release the Taliban and pull the bulk of our military out of Afghanistan on top of COVID running through the country.

------------

Let's say that the rioters were able to find Pence and hold him hostage. Now, we **already** know that NONE of them had any substantive knowledge of our Constitution or they would have known that Trump propelled them with a lie and Trump definitely knew it was a lie when he said it to them.

So, now we have say a couple hundred people inside the building and 20-30 people keeping watch on Pence. What can they do? There's no wiggle room for negotiations because they force him to stop the certification and then what? Order some pizzas? Stream Netflix? Heaven forbid, they kill Pence. Same deal. In the event of actually killing our VP, they would never make it out alive. Beyond that, with Pence dead, the certification would still happen but homicide would have probably pushed some "R"s to stand behind the impeachment or possibly that would create a pathway to implement the 25th (something Pence said he would not do).

And, that's how we know this was Trump's trial run. This was never his end-all-be-all "Go F yourself." This was for him to gauge how many supporters he could get to come to the Capitol, push them toward that end (mind games), stay clear and determine "Who?", "When?" and "How many?" law enforcement officers would respond. And he's a psychopath but that's a constant. Anybody with any law enforcement background, tactical experience, military, etc. can easily see he's not done. And all of it together is why he was banned from social media. It had nothing to do with his political leanings. It had everything to do with how easily he can make adults do his bidding without questions or hesitation up to and including violence against law enforcement. Those are some scary optics.

 

They don't have to be photographed. Possession counts as I explained earlier.





https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/9778...ere-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

 

@HB Surfer, one more thing I'd like to add.

It is very common for corporate executives to travel separately in case of a plane crash. This is to ensure that the whole company can still run if some of upper management are killed.

Therefore, it's not really relevant if the rioters brandished weapons or not, located Pence or anyone else or not or anything else that could have happened once the building was breached.

Had they killed or harmed the frontline officers and were a direct threat to our leaders in Chambers, it would it would be a new trajectory and leave us vulnerable to every other world leader to strike while the iron is hot.

The point being that's WHY some have been arrested and convicted. This wasn't like some bored kids causing havoc at 7-11. I would be *SHOCKED* to learn that they aren't working on a whole new security plan for when they are in Session. Thankfully, none of them were harmed but there won't be a next time for this kind of thing to happen.