ChiGoose

Actually, it is. Under GA Code § 21-2-604, it is a crime to request that someone engage in a crime as outlined in Georgia election law. This includes GA Code § 21-2-562 which states (among other things) that it is a crime to put any false entry into the voting tally. So, if Trump had won by more than 400,000 as he claimed, but Raffensberger only added 11,000 votes to the tally, then Raffensberger would have committed a crime under 21-2-562 because he put in a fraudulent number. Therefore, by asking Raffensberger to do so, Trump himself violated 21-2-604 by requesting or soliciting that Raffensberger commit a crime under Georgia election law.

Except that Trump had already been told by his DoJ, lawyers and campaign that the claims of fraud in Georgia were false. And then on the call, he said that he won by more than 400,000 votes but he wanted the Secretary of State to certify the election by giving him only around 11,000 more votes. So, he should have known that he was wrong. And even if he didn't believe it, he told the Secretary of State to certify a number that Trump himself believed to be false.

I agree with a lot of this but the problem is that we have a first-past-the-post electoral system which makes third parties almost impossible. We haven't had a major party replaced in over 150 years. If we really want this kind of reform, we need to enact reforms that are politically neutral but allow for the creation of third parties by eliminating the spoiler effect. A system like Ranked Choice Voting or Approval Voting would allow voters to choose their preferred candidate regardless of their party or chance of electoral success without worrying that doing so will benefit their least preferred candidate. Until we do something like that, it is unlikely we will be able to break the Dem - GOP stronghold on our political process and we will continue to be sorted into two camps and incentivized to demonize the other camp.

I think that is far from certain. The GOP is making gains with the Latino vote. Even a small gain greatly hurts the Dems chances given how dependent they are on that demographic in Texas. The Dems have generally been taking Latino voters for granted and it's beginning to show.

I think all of this talk of things like civil war misses a more likely scenario: a slide into an illiberal democracy like Hungary. Instead of advancing our democracy with reforms that will give more power to the people, we are backsliding into anti-democratic trends with things like partisan gerrymandering and laws designed to make voting harder. We already live in an environment where, depending on where you live, your vote may not actually matter. Liberals in Texas and Conservatives in California are essentially disenfranchised for most statewide elections. That trend is likely to continue until we get to a point where we are so heavily polarized that most elections are predetermined and we either get a one-party government or one so inherently broken that it is incapable of addressing anything.

So here is a place where I agree with Donald Trump: Kevin McCarthy completely misplayed the whole committee thing. Originally, it was going to be a bipartisan joint committee based on the 9/11 committee, but the GOP rejected that. So the next option was a House Select Committee. McCarthy suggested five names but Pelosi said two were unacceptable, though she would accept the other three. McCarthy withdrew all of the names instead. If you're mad that there aren't enough Republicans on the committee, you have nobody to blame but the Republicans. But this claim that the committee is one-sided is true, but not in the way you argue. The reality is the committee's story is the story of the people willing to testify under oath. The opposing side that I see brought up here is only supported by people who refuse to testify under oath, or if they do, they either say something completely different than what they are saying in public or they just plead the 5th for the entire interview. These people talk a big game when there is no penalty for lying and then fight tooth and nail to avoid testifying. Even those that publicly claim they would testify generally either don't follow up on it or make demands they know that no investigative body would agree to (that way they can convince the rubes like @DRsGhost that it's all a big witch hunt when in reality they're saving their own ass from a perjury charge). Almost every single witness has been a Republican. And most of them are people who were still working for Trump at the end of his tenure. Which is to say, these people saw everything the Trump administration was doing over the previous three years and felt that it would be good to be a part of that. Additionally, almost all of them owed their jobs to Trump. Were he to lose the election, they would soon become unemployed. They had every incentive to want to believe that Trump did nothing wrong and that Trump had won the 2020 election. So while I see it claimed here that this is just a Dem committee doing Dem things, in reality it's a committee mostly (but not entirely) of Dems taking in sworn testimony from Republicans. It's not the Dem story vs the GOP story, it's the story of people who will testify under oath versus those who won't. The second committee hearing featured sworn testimony from Trump's DoJ, Trump's WH lawyers, and Trump's campaign that Trump lost the election, there was no widespread fraud and that conspiracy theories like 2,000 Mules were investigated and debunked. Barr on 2,000 Mules He also testifies about the other theories, debunking them as well. His testimony begins around the 53:15 mark of the second hearing. We also have sworn testimony from WH Lawyer Eric Herschmann, Trump Campaign General Counsel Matt Morgan, Trump Campaign Manager Bill Stepien, Trump's Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, Counselor to the President Derek Lyons, Trump Campaign Lawyer Alex Canon, and Trump's Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue all testifying that they looked into the fraud claims and there was nothing there. All of that is just in the second hearing, so feel free to watch it there if you'd like. These people, by and large, were handpicked by Trump and had a vested interest in him winning re-election. Because he lost, they were all shortly out of their jobs. They had every reason to want to find a way to say that Trump won. But when it came time to give sworn testimony, they said that Trump lost, and that they had investigated the claims that marks still throw around on internet forums and found them to lack merit. If you still believe in stuff like 2,000 Mules, you've been taken for a ride by a conman. But do not worry, I am sure D'souza still has a promo code for some MyPillow products you can use to soothe yourself.

It’s fair to criticize the committee, but the criticism you tend to level is dumb as hell and shows your ignorance more than actual issues with the committee. Calling anyone else a moron is pretty rich for someone who fell for the obviously fake and now completely debunked 2,000 Mules garbage.

The Jan 6th committee does not have the power to prosecute anyone. And if you believe anything @DRsGhost says, then I have a golf course in Scotland to sell you.

Trump is a narcissistic monster who has no love for this country. Still waiting on what my way of insurrection is or whatever your bias was ascribing to me.

I am a human, and therefore I have biases. I just don’t know what you are talking about, so I asked for clarification.

We have to find a way to turn down the temperature. Americans increasingly see each other as the enemy and silo themselves from anything that contradicts their own personal beliefs. We have always had problems with polarization due to a first-past-the-post election system, but the advent of social media, a fractured news environment, and the computing power to pull off severe gerrymandering have accelerated our issues and polarization. The thing that worries me is that we don’t even agree on facts anymore. How can we find a compromise on how to fix this if we can’t even agree on what reality is? I’m not sure how we come back from that and it really worries me.

What is my way?

No.

Not great!

So, the call itself meets the elements of a crime under Georgia law, meaning you have a prima facie case and could proceed with an indictment. However, because juries are made of people, and people are fickle, you may not feel that the call alone will give you an airtight case. If the call is the smoking gun, then prosecutors also will want to present to the jury the shooter’s partners testifying that they planned the shooting and that they were there and saw the defendant shoot the victim, as well as the victim testifying that they were shot by the defendant. That being said, even if they get all of that, they still may be hesitant to be the first prosecutor to ever charge a former president with a crime (at least as far as I’m aware).

That’s why the call is problematic for him. He tells Raffensberger that he won by more than 400,000 but he just wants Raffensberger to change the tally by 11,000. So even if he is delusional in thinking he won, he is telling the Secretary of State to certify a number Trump himself believes is incorrect.

Juries are fickle and prosecutions of politicians are tricky. If you are going to come for the king, you best not miss. So you get every single piece of evidence you can to ensure a successful prosecution. Not to mention prosecutors generally don’t like to bring cases unless they are confident they can win. It would be a dereliction of duty to not get every piece of ammo they can.

Yeah, that’s really the difference here. When Swalwell was informed of the issue, he cut ties. Meanwhile, every time someone in Trump’s orbit found out they were talking to a suspicious person, they just tried to hide future connections or just ignored the warning altogether.

We need to start taking accelerationism more seriously. From the article in the tweet:

For all of the talk about incitement for the events of Jan 6th, this is actually where Trump himself probably had the greatest legal exposure. They have him on tape breaking the law and if they can get testimony on top of that from people close to him, it might make a successful prosecution very likely.

But I had been assured this was all just a partisan witch-hunt.

Fulton County Subpoenas Rudy Giuliani, Lindsey Graham, John Eastman, Cleta Mitchell, Kenneth Chesebro, and Jenna Ellis.

My understanding is that without PLCAA, such an occurrence would be in line with the same instance of other products. Companies strive to make their products safer because doing so reduces the cost of negative externalities. If your water filter has a small flaw that allows poisonous particles to get through, you correct it because it makes your product better AND avoids liability lawsuits. If your gun is overly lethal, or advertised towards kids, or could be changed to automatic fire with a quick modification, you are NOT liable for any damages because of PLCAA. Repealing PLCAA would incentivize manufactures to keep safety as a major component of their process and end product.

I agree with an exception for military service. Those who go through military training have far more expertise with firearm safety than their peers and that should be recognized. As for PLCAA, most industries are subject to liability for their products and advertising. PLCAA means that the firearms industry is essentially exempt from this liability. Repealing PLCAA means that firearms manufacturers have to be more careful about how they build and sell their guns, and how they advertise them. They would essentially be subject to the same restrictions as most American industries.

We have not always fetishized guns. We have not always targeted gun ads at kids. We have not always framed the discussion of guns around fighting tyranny or even the second amendment. Guns used to be a tool to be used responsibly, not a status symbol or way of proving how tough or cool or patriotic you are.