Fiona Hill: "The president was trying to stage a coup"
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
The left lies constantly and the unsaved people love it.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
YES...
Oath Keepers Trial: Founder Stewart Rhodes Found Guilty Of Seditious Conspiracy
“Our democracy is fragile,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathryn Rakoczy said during her closing arguments, adding Rhodes had repeatedly called for the “violent overthrow” of the U.S. government following Biden’s election victory, according to the AP. “It cannot exist without respect for the rule of law, and it will not survive if people dissatisfied with the results of an election can use force and violence to change the outcome.”
Rioters have always been given a lot of free speech latitude in America. For example, Madonna called for blowing up the White House, Bill Ayers actually did blow up the Capitol Building, and several famous people called for the assassination of Trump or portrayed him getting his head cut off, etc. The democrat Jan 6 committee is not about free speech, it is about democrats desperately trying to cover and protect voting fraud and demonize their political opponents who openly exposed and protested against the fraud.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You realize (rhetorical) that when you say "rioters" and then follow "for example" with Madonna, Bill Ayers and several famous people, that your examples aren't actually examples of rioters?
The Jan 6 committee is about truth, something about with MAGA know little.
Bill Ayers was a radical, Alynskiite, Vietnam war protester who bombed several government buildings including the US Capitol and his gang murdered innocent people. But Bill never went to jail because he is a darling of leftist Communist Democrat traitors.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
They aren't rioters, marke. And they certainly weren't convicted for seditious conspiracy. That's a special kind of crime, which makes Rhodes a special kind of criminal.
You are right. Democrat charges of seditious conspiracy are special in this situation because they are off-the-wall ridiculous politicization of free-speech protests by democrats offended by Americans protesting against democrat voting fraud.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Sorry to break it to you marke, but Rhodes was convicted by a jury of his peers.
His ex-wife, who along with her children was abused by Rhodes, is pretty pleased with the jury's decision.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It's not at all.
You would think perhaps that an attorney would know what the rule of law actually is, but nope. The rule of law is a political situation where, as in America, the law, and no man, is king. The rule of law is one of the liberal institutions which protects justice, in a moral constitution. As such the rule of law pertains to a regime, and not to private citizens of a polity.
The defendant broke the law, and afaik he was subjected to due process of law and was justly convicted of breaking the law (which I believe is a good, moral and just law, fyi).
The rule of law doesn't concern private citizens but government officials. Private citizens must obey the law or else incur the wrath of the law, but that's not the same as the rule of law. It has much more to do with politicians breaking the law. If politicians get away with murder but private citizens don't, then you have a breakdown of the rule of law. Absolute monarchies forever had laws that private citizens had to obey, that is not the same as the rule of law.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I don't agree. Many Germans were in denial in the years leading up to WWII, because incrementalism can be confusing and easy to rationalize. I read a book years ago called I Will Bear Witness by Victor Klemperer which was actually his diary of those years, and it's so clear in hindsight. Many, maybe most Americans don't know of the fascism that was visible in the U.S. in those years, and there are similar warning signs today.
Overview - Rule of Law
More than 200 years ago, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay published a series of essays promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution now known as Federalist Papers. In explaining the need for an independent judiciary, Alexander Hamilton noted in The Federalist # 78...
I'm glad we agree on this.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
OK, but Germany was a very fragile liberal democracy at the time, quite unlike our political situation now. Germany then was a poor imitation of the American Constitution. The German constitution did not defend Germany against Hitler, and the American Constitution at any time would have, including today.
That's what I said. You'll notice every example used in that link to illustrate the rule of law concerned the government and what it was doing, and not whether or not a private citizen was breaking any laws. That's a separate issue, having more to do with maintaining law and order, rather than defending the rule of law.Overview - Rule of Law
More than 200 years ago, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay published a series of essays promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution now known as Federalist Papers. In explaining the need for an independent judiciary, Alexander Hamilton noted in The Federalist # 78...www.uscourts.gov
The guy broke the law, and it was a good law. Justice is done.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I agree that to this point the Constitution has held, although the Trump years show how easy it was probe its weaknesses. There was a satirical headline that went something like Trump Threatens To Pull America Out Of U.S. Constitution.
What his administration showed was how much of what passes day to day as governmenting is based quite a lot on norms recognized by politicians on both sides of the aisle that aren't necessarily spelled out in the Constitution. Trump literally threw those norms out the window, thus allowing any of his successors to be bold enough to do the same.
So would it be easer for a future president to ignore Congress, or the Courts? It could happen.
Okay, well the link says "persons" are subject to the rule of law so I'm still not sure what you're getting to, but it's not a hill to die on, so I'll leave it at that.
He may be a wicked person, but democrats are also wicked for jailing opponents for protesting against their 2020 voting fraud.
They were jailed for breaking the law.
Kamala Harris was taking up donations to bail looters, rioters, arsonists, and assailants out of jail during the democrat summer of love riots in 2020. Democrats don't care about law and justice, they care about promoting and protecting the democrat party and its agenda even if it means breaking the law and illegally persecuting their political opponents.
Irrelevant, diversion, whataboutism, etc. The J6 Capitol rioters broke the law and are being prosecuted for it as anyone should be.
The point is the democrats interpret the same laws one way for democrats and another way for non-democrats, just like the fascist oligarchs of banana republics interpret laws one way for themselves and a different way for all their enslaved and oppressed subjects.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Meanwhile, Trump says his 2020 loss should be overturned, and how?
Via "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."