Biden Tracker (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    An attempted "coup from below' is as close to an actual definition of what occurred on January 6th as I've been able to find.. but it's multi-layered in my view because the January 6th attempted coup from below only occurred as a result of the attempted "coup from within" that was occurring post election 2020 through the events of January 6th.
    *Just wanted to amend this because I think what I called a "coup from within" there should actually be referred to as an autocoup or "self-coup."
     
    When Morsi was ousted in July 2013, the
    Obama administration decided not to publicly
    declare whether it was a coup. In part, this was
    because it didn’t look like other military coups:
    civilians were in some ways the protagonists.
    But it was still a coup—which means we should
    have immediately suspended U.S. military aid
    to Egypt, as required by U.S. law. But we didn’t
    do that. This was a mistake. If we had immedi-
    ately suspended aid and condemned the coup,
    perhaps the Rabaa massacre could have been
    prevented. So I came up with this notion of a
    “coup from below” so that if there is ever a similar
    confluence of bottom-up protests and top-down intervention, we have a way of describing it and could still recognize it as a coup.
    I further argue
    that the nature of the coup determined the nature
    of the crackdown that followed: because civilians
    were the source of instability, they were the first
    targets. This resulted in a return to the mili-
    tary-backed regime and ultimately, the triumph
    (until now) of the counterrevolution. I contrast
    the period from 2011–2018 with the “revolution
    from above,” carried out by Nasser and the Free
    Officers after 1952.

    Sort of amazing how prescient that is considering it's prior to January 6th (though I'm not convinced she actually invented the term, but it perfectly applies).
     

    Attachments

    • Screenshot_20240210-213801-617.png
      Screenshot_20240210-213801-617.png
      237.3 KB · Views: 11
    Jack Smith, who has unlimited resources, could have charged Trump with participating or inciting an insurrection, but he chose not to.

    That tells you all the insurrection talk is political rhetoric and total bullshirt.
    You should tell that to the guys in jail. I bet they wish they'd used that defense.
     
    My personal security, nor America's has anything to do with the ME. We are a net exporter of oil now. To the point, we have almost broken OPEC. I hope this "disaster" is on the same level as the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    P.S. For all the boomers who don't get what's going on: semiconductors > cheap oil. This is called pivoting.

    The sooner the official US position on the MidEast is "Let them go to hell in their own handbaskets" the better.
     
    SFL:

    The insurrection that Trump directed wasn’t merely the events if Jan 6. Far from it. He leaned on state legislatures to change the outcome of the Presidential elections in swing states. He brought some of the state legislators to the WH to try to convince them. He had fake elector slates go to state capitols and pretend they were voting for him, then he had them send in those fake certificates to DC and he leaned on Pence to recognize them. He called governors, he called state election officials, he leaned on secretaries of states - “there’s nothing wrong with saying you recalculated” in order to declare Trump the winner.

    All of this was after he lost every lawsuit that would have reversed the election in his favor. He had exhausted all legal means to change the election, so he turned to extra-legal means. Jan 6 was just his last gasp effort. He hoped the people would cause the certification to be delayed, and he was working the phones to Senators during the violence to get them to refuse to certify. He refused to do anything to stop the violence. He didn’t send the “go home be peaceful” tweet, that was Scavino. He sent the one that inspired the crowd to chant “Hang Mike Pence” though.

    Defending him is disgusting.
     
    That actually popped in my head but I just didn't post it lol.. mostly because of the nuance there with OJ having actually been charged by a prosecutor.
    If you have to use a brutal murderer as your example, you don't have as strong of an argument as you think you do.

    Our justice system is very clear. Innocent until proven guilty although Democrats have tried to pervert that by claiming guilty until proven innocent. Trump has broke many on the lefts brains that they break every norm possible in the name of stopping Trump.
     
    If you have to use a brutal murderer as your example, you don't have as strong of an argument as you think you do.

    Our justice system is very clear. Innocent until proven guilty although Democrats have tried to pervert that by claiming guilty until proven innocent. Trump has broke many on the lefts brains that they break every norm possible in the name of stopping Trump.
    Well I didn't use it as an example because it didn't really fit the criteria.

    I am quite sure there are people in the political world that you believe are guilty of crimes that they have not been charged with or convicted of.. and as rational thinkers were able to compartmentalize things and parse out what we believe we know from what goes on within the legal system.
     
    You should tell that to the guys in jail. I bet they wish they'd used that defense.
    Those people were actually charged with a crime and they weren't charged with participating in an insurrection. Trump wasn't charged.

    It's awfully convenient with Jack Smith and Mueller that the most obvious things that Trump supposedly did(obstruction & insurrection) he wasn't even charged with. 🙄
     
    Those people were actually charged with a crime and they weren't charged with participating in an insurrection. Trump wasn't charged.

    It's awfully convenient with Jack Smith and Mueller that the most obvious things that Trump supposedly did(obstruction & insurrection) he wasn't even charged with. 🙄
    People have been convicted of seditious conspiracy which has some fairly obvious overlap with insurrection. You're mostly making a distinction without a difference there imo.

    And I would disagree with your characterization, the most obvious crimes committed by Trump are related to his attempts at illegally remaining in office and with his obstruction in the classified documents case. And he is actually charged in those cases.
     
    *Just wanted to amend this because I think what I called a "coup from within" there should actually be referred to as an autocoup or "self-coup."
    This is what I posted previously on this subject:

    Auto-coup is also called an autogolpe. There wasn't any military threat so it wasn't an autogolpe. It was a riot.

    Foreign Policy’s editor-at-large Jonathan Tepperman spoke to Naunihal Singh, a professor at the Naval War College and the author of Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups.

    Jonathan Tepperman: What’s the right term for what’s happening in Washington right now? Given President Donald Trump’s clear but indirect incitement, does it qualify as a coup or an autogolpe, or is it sedition? And why does it matter what we call it?

    Naunihal Singh: This is not a military coup because that would involve the president using the military or the Secret Service or some armed branch of the government to get his way. Nor would I argue that it is what some people have called a civilian coup or an executive coup. Even autogolpes involve the threat of military force.


     
    People have been convicted of seditious conspiracy which has some fairly obvious overlap with insurrection. You're mostly making a distinction without a difference there imo.
    I understand there is some overlap, but as much as the left and the media constantly say it was definitely an insurrection, again, why no charges for insurrection?

    I'm sorry I don't buy the excuses for why Trump or the January 6th defendants weren't charged with insurrection.

    Think of how pernicious it is to constantly claim someone is guilty of a crime that they were never charged with.
    And I would disagree with your characterization, the most obvious crimes committed by Trump are related to his attempts at illegally remaining in office and with his obstruction in the classified documents case. And he is actually charged in those cases.
    There has been a constant daily drumbeat of the left and the media screaming that Trump engaged an insurrection similar to the Russiagate stories.

    The classified documents case has been talked about, but nothing close to the insurrection talk.

    And Biden got the kid glove treatment in his classified documents case. We knew that would happen especially after seeing the Biden DOJ do everything they could to protect Hunter until they got exposed.
     
    This is what I posted previously on this subject:

    Auto-coup is also called an autogolpe. There wasn't any military threat so it wasn't an autogolpe. It was a riot.

    Foreign Policy’s editor-at-large Jonathan Tepperman spoke to Naunihal Singh, a professor at the Naval War College and the author of Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups.

    Jonathan Tepperman: What’s the right term for what’s happening in Washington right now? Given President Donald Trump’s clear but indirect incitement, does it qualify as a coup or an autogolpe, or is it sedition? And why does it matter what we call it?

    Naunihal Singh: This is not a military coup because that would involve the president using the military or the Secret Service or some armed branch of the government to get his way. Nor would I argue that it is what some people have called a civilian coup or an executive coup. Even autogolpes involve the threat of military force.


    As I said to you when you posted this previously, that article came out on the afternoon of January 6th and therefore could not properly factor in the behind the scenes details that were not publicly known at that point in time. That article is based upon a very incomplete picture of what was actually occurring.
     
    I understand there is some overlap, but as much as the left and the media constantly say it was definitely an insurrection, again, why no charges for insurrection?

    I'm sorry I don't buy the excuses for why Trump or the January 6th defendants weren't charged with insurrection.

    Think of how pernicious it is to constantly claim someone is guilty of a crime that they were never charged with.
    I've researched before but honestly can't remember the details without doing the research again as to why seditious conspiracy was what they went with.

    I just know that on a basic level, what occurred on January 6th fits the exact dictionary definition of an insurrection. And therefore I am very comfortable in using that word.
    There has been a constant daily drumbeat of the left and the media screaming that Trump engaged an insurrection similar to the Russiagate stories.

    The classified documents case has been talked about, but nothing close to the insurrection talk.

    And Biden got the kid glove treatment in his classified documents case. We knew that would happen especially after seeing the Biden DOJ do everything they could to protect Hunter until they got exposed.
    I'm sure there is that occurring on the left but it doesn't affect how I view things personally and to me the strongest cases are the couple that I mentioned that he's actually charged in.

    There are inherent flaws built into the system for investigating and charging/convicting (high-level) politicians, I completely agree. That said, I believe Trump is only charged with the cover up related aspects in the classified documents case and unless you can point it out I'm unaware of an equivalency there within the Biden case. If you're making an argument to charge Biden and to additionally charge Trump with more crimes related to the retention and sharing of classified information then I could definitely understand that.

    You might disagree but overall I generally believe that Trump probably would not have been charged with anything in that particular case had he cooperated.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom