Re: [OT] What's next for Kamala Harris?

suzeeq <suzeeq@imbris.com> wrote:

On 11/18/2024 6:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Nov 18, 2024 at 6:32:25 PM PST, suzeeq <suzeeq@imbris.com> wrote:

On 11/18/2024 6:24 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Nov 18, 2024 at 5:45:49 PM PST, suzeeq <suzeeq@imbris.com> wrote:

On 11/18/2024 11:20 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Nov 18, 2024 at 11:00:03 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Nov 18, 2024 at 8:31:21 AM PST, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 11/18/2024 11:22 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

Nov 18, 2024 at 1:19:16 AM PST, shawn wrote:

17 Nov 2024 21:29:19 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>:

15 Nov 2024 20:11:31 -0500, shawn wrote:

. . .

You're all about detecting the unspoken wink-and-nod when it
comes to Trump allegedly inciting an insurrection despite
actually telling the crowd to protest peacefully, but your
ability to detect the same when it comes to a Democrat seems
conveniently lacking.

Stop it. Did the Secret Service agent lie that he refused Trump's
demand to be taken to the Capitol? Trump intended to lead the
crowd in.

Repeating myself: Trump's speech was TOO LATE.

Repeating myself: Trump told them to protest peacefully BEFORE
the crowd even left the Ellipse, before the marched to the Capitol.

What about all those people who went directly to the Capitol with ill
intent? What about all the people who could have been diverted from
heading toward Washington if Trump explicitly told them to turn back
several hours earlier?

And there was a bunch of people who weren't even at his speech at the
Ellipse who went to the Capitol first, and led the charge to get in.
Most were Proud Boys.

Well, if they weren't at the Ellipse, then Trump can't possibly be
liable for 'inciting' them.

But members of his team met with them the night before to finalize the
plan. Who do you think sent that team?

Even if true, that's not incitement according to the elements of the crime.

It's on tape. Who do you think okayed his men to organize the PBs?

These two Web pages give a summary of the crimes being discussed.

Insurrection
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/treason.htm

Incitement
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/inciting-to-riot-violence-or-insurrection.html

There aren't any crimes Trump can be charged with, unlike what he said
to Raffensberger.

I had no comment to make on what he said Kamala Harris said during the
2020 presidential primary campaign about Biden, countering moviePig
STOOPID, as that summarized my objections to her campaigning. It was
condescending guilt-by-association shit that reminded me of anti-Obama
tactics from the 2008 campaign with regard to his supposed association
with Bill Ayers. She never offered a reason to vote FOR her. In the 2024
campaign, she still never offered a reason to vote for her.

My disagreement with him about Trump is not whether Trump can be charged
with a crime he could be found guilty of in court for organizing the
January 6 riots, but whether Trump is actually innocent.

In a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the case beyond a
reasonable doubt. That's a high standard of evidence, but not the
highest standard. If the jury does not find guilt, the defendant has
been acquitted, but that doesn't mean that the jury has made a finding
of actual innocence. Actual innocence is impossible for the jury to find
as they'd literally have to investigate the crime, either proving the
alibi or proving mistaken identity and that another party committed the
crime who should have been on trial instead.

But let's say that the defendant was one of the criminal conspirators
but was charged with certain crimes he didn't actually commit. In a
kidnapping gone horribly wrong, the victim ends up dead. It's likely a
jury would find that the felony murder charge applies to some defendants
but not all. A jury will consider the degree to which a specific
defendant participated in spectific elements of the crime.

In a society in which censorship is a deprivation of rights under color
of law, government makes no determination of whether speech or writing
is safe or unsafe. That's an individual responsibility.

Trump refused to accept the results of the election. He knew he had lost
the election but, through his denials, stirred up anger in his partisans
so that they might commit an overt act in demonstration of personal
loyalty toward him.

He told his supporters that Congress would certify false election
results on January 6. Others surrounding Trump organized protests which
Trump was aware of. Trump did his best to keep emotions high through
text messages.

Because Trump cannot be censored, he's responsible for what he has said
and the direct consequences of stirring up so many people.

He was the reason the crimes occurred, because of his speech. He's not
actually innocent even though there are no applicable charges to bring.

BTR1701 thinks that's enough for society not to hold Trump responsible
for the anticipated consequences of his speech and his failures to speak
early enough once it was known that people were heading toward
Washington to attack the Capitol.

I say because he's not actually innocent, he is responsible for the
anticipated consequences of his speech regardless of what he can be
prosecuted for.

That's the nature of protected speech. With government prohibited from
using police power to censor via prior restraint or civil suit or arrest
before or after the fact, government isn't responsible for the speaker's
or author's words and their consequence, anticipated or not. The speaker,
and no one else, is responsible for inflammatory speech and whether anger
is being channeled into organizing a peaceful protest or violence.

If the speaker or author cannot be considered to be responsible by
society for consequence, and the extent to which is responsible, then
speech isn't free, is it.

Free speech has never meant no responsibility, just no censorship.

I can't even believe BTR1701 is playing Devil's Advocate here.