January 6th, 2021

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Which legally permitted behaviors would those be?
With Harvard it's hard to tell! It's a moving target and things like student boycotts can have a say. It's usually loosely defined as bringing the employer into disrepute, say like making racist comments, advocating genocide or fascism. Not illegal but repulsive none the less.
 

xtsho

Well-Known Member
I know a moron. He says that the traitors that stormed the Capitol building in an attempt to stop the election outcome are no different than the idiots that ran amok in the streets of Portland. His logic is that since the morons in Portland broke windows of a federal building it's the same thing. I told him he's an idiot. Some people just don't get it.
 

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
I know a moron. He says that the traitors that stormed the Capitol building in an attempt to stop the election outcome are no different than the idiots that ran amok in the streets of Portland. His logic is that since the morons in Portland broke windows of a federal building it's the same thing. I told him he's an idiot. Some people just don't get it.
Considering that the idiots who ran amok in Portland were almost all right-militia provocateurs on a false flag mission to discredit the legitimate protesters, I’m a bit lost.
 

C. Nesbitt

Well-Known Member
Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax: Jan. 6 'Stress Test for Democracy'; 'We Passed'
Throwing around the term "insurrection" to describe the events of Jan. 6, 2021, is not just overblown, but dangerous and might ultimately boomerang back on Democrats, according to legal expert Alan Dershowitz on Newsmax.

"We've watered down real insurrections, which we obviously have to prevent, and second we allow the weaponization for one party," Dershowitz told Thursday's "Spicer & Co."

"You can't throw those words around — 'insurrection' — because they'll be thrown back at you. Next time there's a protest by the Democrats, the Republicans will take out this statement and say, 'ah-ha!'"

Dershowitz warned Republicans are already talking about retribution against President Joe Biden after former President Donald Trump was impeached twice by the Democrat-led House only to be acquitted in the Senate, including one trial that included the testimony of Dershowitz himself on behalf of Trump, a president he had not voted for.

"There's a movement to impeach President Biden, and Republicans are saying, 'We don't think he really committed impeachable conduct, but because the Democrats impeached Trump, we're gonna impeach Biden,'" Dershowitz said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and other Republicans have talked about impeaching Biden for "dereliction of duty" surrounding the deadly U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, but Dershowitz told co-hosts Sean Spicer and Lyndsay Keith that Republicans are suggesting "two wrongs make a right."

"No, no, two constitutional wrongs are worse than one constitutional wrong, and they certainly don't make a right," Dershowitz said.

The storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was a "stress test for democracy," according to Dershowitz.

"It's not an insurrection," he continued. "This is a protest that became violent, a stress test of democracy, and we passed the test. The American public overwhelmingly rejected the use of violence."

Seeking to weaponize Jan. 6 to keep Trump from running for president in 2024 is an unconstitutional abuse of the 14th Amendment, which codifies equal protection under the law and delves into "insurrection" under Section 3.

"There are people who should know better," Dershowitz said. "Professor Laurence Tribe and others are partisan zealots, not constitutional scholars, weaponizing the Constitution for one party rather than the other.

"No, this was not the kind of insurrection that the 14th Amendment had in mind. This is much closer to what [former President Abraham] Lincoln said [in his second] inaugural address: 'With malice to none and charity for all, let's get back to doing business.'"

Dershowitz called for America to "calibrate" the events of Jan. 6 as a protest that turned violent, like many in American history before from both parties.

"If you had people who got up and said, 'Look, we know — we know — that Biden won the election fair and square but nonetheless we're going to overthrow Biden,' that would be one thing," Dershowitz said of the Jan. 6 rioters. "These are people who wrongheadedly believed, some of them at least, that the election was unfair. That's not an insurrection."

Dershowitz hearkened back to the 2000 election between then-Vice President Al Gore and ultimately elected President George W. Bush and his book, "Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000," saying Gore won that election.

"I attacked the Supreme Court for giving the election over to the Republicans," Dershowitz said. "That was my constitutional right. And so we have to understand the difference between protests, even protests that turned violent, and insurrections.

"The First Amendment, the right to assemble peaceably and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, is critically important. And to start calling that an insurrection is to violate both intent of the framers and the words of the First Amendment."

Sadly overlooking the purpose of the events of the day. To stop the peaceful transfer of power. In doing so the Republicans wanted the slate of electors thrown out and the House pick the winner, with the Republicans the majority for only a few more days.
Dershowitz makes a couple of "interesting" arguments here. First, he argues (more like scolds) that terms like "insurrection" should not be thrown around by democrats because republicans will then start to throw those same terms back at democrats. That is true, but irrelevant. It doesn't tell us anything we don't already know about the current state of political hyper-partisanship in the US.
Both parties are always going to try and use the other's language against one another, but that should not be a reason to sugar coat what happened on January 6, 2021. If it looked like an insurrection, we need to call it as such.
We already knew that some radicals in Congress are talking about impeaching Biden as retribution for the two impeachments of Trump. It will be political theater if that occurs, and will be further damaging to the US, but ultimately would not remove Biden from office.
Second, he's on a slippery slope with trying to split legal hairs over terming it a protest vs. insurrection. Calling it "a protest that became violent" and then absolving those participants involved in said protest of insurrection because they "...believed...that the election was unfair" is ridiculous.
Following that same logic, one could argue that because people believed that Trump was unfairly elected in 2016 due to not winning the popular vote, an organized and armed group of Hillary Clinton supporters could have stormed the White House and looked to lynch Trump in early 2017 but that would have just been a protest that turned violent, not an insurrection.
Clearly such an event would have been an seditious insurrection and many would be calling for the death penalty for the participants in such an action.
Dershowitz should really know better than to go down that path. When someone commits a crime in the US, the US legal system just does not absolve them of that crime due their belief that they were in the right.
Timothy McVeigh believed the ATF was an agent of government over-reach when he blew up a Federal building in 1995. That belief didn't stop him of getting convicted on all counts and getting executed for his crimes.
 

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
Dershowitz makes a couple of "interesting" arguments here. First, he argues (more like scolds) that terms like "insurrection" should not be thrown around by democrats because republicans will then start to throw those same terms back at democrats. That is true, but irrelevant. It doesn't tell us anything we don't already know about the current state of political hyper-partisanship in the US.
Both parties are always going to try and use the other's language against one another, but that should not be a reason to sugar coat what happened on January 6, 2021. If it looked like an insurrection, we need to call it as such.
We already knew that some radicals in Congress are talking about impeaching Biden as retribution for the two impeachments of Trump. It will be political theater if that occurs, and will be further damaging to the US, but ultimately would not remove Biden from office.
Second, he's on a slippery slope with trying to split legal hairs over terming it a protest vs. insurrection. Calling it "a protest that became violent" and then absolving those participants involved in said protest of insurrection because they "...believed...that the election was unfair" is ridiculous.
Following that same logic, one could argue that because people believed that Trump was unfairly elected in 2016 due to not winning the popular vote, an organized and armed group of Hillary Clinton supporters could have stormed the White House and looked to lynch Trump in early 2017 but that would have just been a protest that turned violent, not an insurrection.
Clearly such an event would have been an seditious insurrection and many would be calling for the death penalty for the participants in such an action.
Dershowitz should really know better than to go down that path. When someone commits a crime in the US, the US legal system just does not absolve them of that crime due their belief that they were in the right.
Timothy McVeigh believed the ATF was an agent of government over-reach when he blew up a Federal building in 1995. That belief didn't stop him of getting convicted on all counts and getting executed for his crimes.
He is slinging hard-right disinformation. I guess that reveals his colors.
 

xtsho

Well-Known Member
Considering that the idiots who ran amok in Portland were almost all right-militia provocateurs on a false flag mission to discredit the legitimate protesters, I’m a bit lost.
Lets not dive into the company of the trumpsters and conspiracy theories.

They were not all right-militia provocateurs. There were probably some but the vast majority were anarchist types. I live in Portland and watched it live everyday. I saw the people up close. Most were the same anarchists types that have been flocking to Portland for decades long before trump was President. People have been tearing up the city since I can remember. It just went on longer than it ever has. Before maybe a few days at most but not an entire damn year. It sucked.

We did have marches by the proud boys that would show up just to cause a confrontation but they were not burning up the city.

The biggest orange dots on each map is Portland. Orange=riots.



 

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
Lets not dive into the company of the trumpsters and conspiracy theories.

They were not all right-militia provocateurs. There were probably some but the vast majority were anarchist types. I live in Portland and watched it live everyday. I saw the people up close. Most were the same anarchists types that have been flocking to Portland for decades long before trump was President. People have been tearing up the city since I can remember. It just went on longer than it ever has. Before maybe a few days at most but not an entire damn year. It sucked.

We did have marches by the proud boys that would show up just to cause a confrontation but they were not burning up the city.

The biggest orange dots on each map is Portland. Orange=riots.



How did you distinguish real from fake anarchist types?
 

xtsho

Well-Known Member
How did you distinguish real from fake anarchist types?
Are you serious? I've lived here all my life including in the middle of where the riots took place for 14 years. I've walked the streets, drank in the brewpubs, went to festivals on the waterfront, dinner at Ruths Chris for decades. I know the city from one end to the other. I think I'm qualified to tell who was who and who was doing what.
 

CatHedral

Well-Known Member
Are you serious? I've lived here all my life including in the middle of where the riots took place for 14 years. I've walked the streets, drank in the brewpubs, went to festivals on the waterfront, dinner at Ruths Chris for decades. I know the city from one end to the other. I think I'm qualified to tell who was who and who was doing what.
Yes, I am serious. I also don’t believe that you could tell at a glance. I asked you how, and you gave me some vague bad logic. I’m wagering you walked by dozens of false-flaggers and thought they were on your side.
 
Top