Probably time for a hour long movie from the guy that thinks war crimes are the answer
🍿🍿🍿🥃
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK. I'm guessing it's no big deal to intentionally mislabel things for political purposes. Sorry I started this thread. It's subject is ignored and it's just become a springboard for whatever other bug is up somebodies arse.

Neither you or Turley know that anything was mislabeled, though to create political pressure or news both of you and Reuters mislabel unattributed comments as evidence and present order of indictment as evidence of something.
Indictments follow a predictable pattern, smaller fish first, build the evidence and collaborating witnesses and then the big fish are caught.
Predicates exist for all the people charged in the Jan6 cases and they are being prosecuted.

Perhaps if you are concerned about mislabeling, you could commiserate with Allan Weisselburg on compensation illegally labeled as "Holiday Entertainment". But that's criminal behavior not political.

Or are you referring to the words of former Trump campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski who during an interview on MSNBC in February 2019 said, “I don’t ever remember the president ever asking me to get involved with Jeff Sessions or the Department of Justice in any way, shape or form ever.”

Which is not what Lewandowski told special counsel Robert S. Mueller III under oath in 2017. Lewandowski said then that Trump had instructed him twice to tell Sessions, then the attorney general, to curtail Mueller’s investigation of Trump, and Lewandowski failed to do so, perhaps saving Trump from an overt act of obstructing justice.

So, from those examples it sounds like you don't approve of mislabeling. Or maybe you're just calling them to my attention. A lot of that goes on. I pointed out a politically influential one. There are many, many more. Perhaps you could make one of your big lists, this time pointing out all the improper names floating around out there, especially right wing MAGA ones. And that will somehow show that calling the J6 riot an "insurrection" is but a trifling thing. Probably even less important because Trumplikans, suposedly, do a lot more . . . and no doubt even worser ones.

Or, maybe, it not only doesn't concern you, but you think it's really cool to disparage folks by mislabeling them some evil kind of thing. You have labeled me many disreputable sounding things and called me weird names like Saul Alinsky or claimed that Putin must be proud of me. And you claim I see war crimes and genocide as "answers" and who besides Muslims do I want to exterminate. It's the kind of tactic that simplifies adversary argument. No need to prove. Just imply, insinuate, label, throw in long lists and opinion pieces and some irreverent humor, and it will sound, to some like-minded people, as very true and important stuff.

As for your claim that I think genocide is an answer, I didn't claim it was. I said "We should not have occupied Afghanistan to begin with. If they had Osama and wouldn't turn him over to us, we should have just carpet bombed that country and left a message on top of the rubble for the survivors and leaders that we would be back with more if they messed with us.

Nowhere did I say we should exterminate the Afghan people. If we did, there would be no-one left to read our note. Actually, what right did we have to invade Afghanistan? They had every right to shield whomever they wished. But wars are like that. Those who start wars can tell you how they very well had the right to attack.

Then I posited that "Having not done that, but intruding ourselves into their wonderful Islamic nation, we should only have done it after totally defeating the Taliban, totally wiped it out, then peacefully cleaning up the mess we made, and offer them assistance in rebuilding and occupying for a while."

Again, no mention of exterminating the Afghan people. I do believe, that in creating a war with the Taliban, the only permanent victory would be to wipe it out.

You claimed that all of that meant that I thought "genocide" was an answer. I opined that we committed "genocide" on the Nazis. You countered with "We didn’t commit genocide in the Second World War." I quoted a strictly denotational definition of "genocide" that fit the notion of what we did as "genocide."

OK, so if you did not think we committed any genocide in WWII, then let us use what seems to be your notion of "genocide" and apply what we did in WWII to reducing Afghanistan to rubble to achieve our goal. Let's say instead of doing it all at once, we did it a bit at a time until we got what we wanted. Pick a large city in Afghanistan, and totally annihilate it including all the people, guilty or innocent, in it. And if we still didn't get what we wanted, pick another large city, and destroy it and all the people in it. And if we still didn't get what we wanted, continue the destruction until mission was accomplished.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind?

As far as your implication that I want to exterminate Muslims goes, I never said nor implied that I want to do that. Islam is another matter. If folks want to practice that religion as it really is, they can have their own country in which the people support it. I don't want it practiced, as it really and fundamentally is, here. People keep talking about reform. Fine. When it, or some version of it, actually is reformed in such a way that it is compatible with our laws, that's a different story.
And if those that want to practice it in the fundamental way it actually is want to severely mess with us, I would not be reluctant to totally wiping them out. Negotiation without brutal force, doesn't seem to work with them.

Perhaps I could suggest a new fake name for you, fitting for one who claims that a reiteration of the Crusades is in order.
How does Urban II sound?

But back to insurrection and insurrectionists:

In a government filing responding to a request from Joshua James to have his bail conditions relaxed, the government provided a number of new details about the investigation (as well as noting that, since James’ wife has made almost $200,000 in a fundraiser tied to his arrest, his claim to need to work to provide for his family is unpersuasive).

The filing reveals (possibly based off reconstructed James texts), that on January 10, at least three Oath Keepers had come to believe that Trump had invoked the Insurrection Act, but was being prevented from releasing it.

Kelly Meggs knew about it — but said his guys from Florida were “stay[ing] home until shots fired.”

Kelly Meggs: Insurrection act appears to be signed and we shall se [sic] what tomorrow brings.

James: Yes..

Kelly Meggs: Stay safe

James: You too! Are you coming to TX?

Kelly Meggs: Nope Fl stays home until shots fired !

In addition, James spoke about it with Brian Ulrich.

Ulrich: We heard [Person One] might be disseminating information to all of us is that true?

James: Hes gone comms dark. Im with him.

Ulrich: Oh? Lol well there was talk that he was announcing. Can you guys at least tell me or us is trump going to do something is up with this is all about is he actually doing something?…

Ulrich: Been hearing since this AM that trump signed EO and he was going to have a speech but nothing confirmed.

James: That’s correct. The Insurrection act has been signed but not published to the public. They are keeping him locked away.. theres so much bad information coming from all angles its really difficult to determine whats real and what’s fake.

Ulrich: But is it coming that’s all I want to know…

James: Everyone needs to stay calm, and let’s see what POTUS does.. Yes Its already happening.

Ulrich: Ok. [Person One] ok? You guys needs to stay below the radar.

Since James was with Stewart Rhodes (and armed) when he wrote this, it seems likely Rhodes believed this as well.

If nothing else, the fact that at least three people independently came to believe that Trump had invoked the Insurrection Act will give DOJ probable cause to obtain the communications that might reveal why — and via what channels — they believed that to be true.

Update: The January 6 Select Committee just released their document requests. They ask for any discussions about the Insurrection Act from a variety of departments, including DOJ and DOD.

oh good, a play....this is fun

Actually there is a judge in Michigan, the Honorable Linda V. Parker,
who just ruled on mislabeling for political purposes. Perhaps you would find it interesting

From the Opinion and Order

This lawsuit represents a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process.
It is one thing to take on the charge of vindicating rights associated with an allegedly fraudulent election. It is another to take on the charge of deceiving a federal court and the American people into believing that rights were infringed, without regard to whether any laws or rights were in fact violated. This is what happened here.

The attorneys who filed the instant lawsuit abused the well-established rules applicable to the litigation process by proffering claims not backed by law; proffering claims not backed by evidence (but instead, speculation, conjecture, and unwarranted suspicion); proffering factual allegations and claims without engaging in the required prefiling inquiry; and dragging out these proceedings even after they acknowledged that it was too late to attain the relief sought.
And this case was never about fraud—it was about undermining the People’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so.
While there are many arenas—including print, television, and social media—where protestations, conjecture, and speculation may be advanced, such expressions are neither permitted nor welcomed in a court of law.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...05.172.0_3.pdf

Don't see how any of this proves or even implies that J6 was an insurrection. Your usual deflection from the subject at hand to a kind of how about this shiny object over here.

If the judge believes that fake labels undermine the so-called "Peoples faith in our democracy", then I agree with her.

Now the Man from Florida is once again trying to cover up his actions.

There’s a legitimate scope of executive privilege, which ensures a president gets candid, thorough advice. But it doesn’t extend to covering up efforts to keep the new president from taking office. Trump’s desperation to keep info secret says it all.

The Man from Florida--that has an air of luxurious mystery. A suggestion of intrigue. Could be the title of a romance novel to fill the nights of a lonely woman.

Yeah, yeah, I know . . . for you it would be about the ugly, brutal and vastly deserved fall of a tyrant who threatened to create the fall of a great nation . . . or even the collapse of the universe.

More like the Master of The Long Con.

Lifelong pattern of criminal activity, that's finally catching up to him.

Probably all this is just smoke, like that from the unraked forests that caught fire.

1. E. Jean Carroll Defamation and Federal Tort Claims Act Litigation
2. Summer Zervos Defamation Suit
3. Mary Trump Fraud Litigation
4. Panama Hotel Fraud and Tax Litigation
5. Doe v. The Trump Corporation Class Action
6. DC Civil Suit over Misuse of 2017 Inauguration Funds
7. Reps. Karen Bass et al Incitement Suit for Jan. 6 Capitol Attack
8. Eric Swalwell Incitement Suit for Jan. 6 Riots
9. Capitol Police Suit for Jan. 6 Riots
10. NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund Voting Rights Case for Post-Election Actions
11. New York Attorney General’s Civil and Criminal Investigations
12. Scotland Unexplained Wealth Orders
13. Criminal Investigations into Trump’s Finances
14. DC AG Incitement Criminal Investigation
15. Fulton County, Georgia Criminal Election Influence Investigation

I suspect this all makes you very happy. Maybe they'll finally convict him of something. If somehow they could actually convict him of something that demanded the death penalty, would that send a tingle up your leg? It might save the rest of us from having to be daily informed by you about how evil Trump is/was/and probably ever shall be. But, I suspect, even after he's buried, you'd find some article to post about other bad stuff Trump may have or would have done.

Interesting that suits 8 and 9 are for "riots" on Jan.6 and number 7 for "attack"--not "insurrection."

I’d throw everything I have into Jergens and Kleenex stocks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device