January 6 Coup Attempt

[Josh]

Here's another pattern: whenever myself, or others, cite experts or facts, you impeach our experts, or claim our facts aren't good enough, or else say we just need to wait for time for courts and your chosen experts to prove things. This happens invariably.

However, none of us here get to decide whom everyone else thinks the experts are. This is the cause of a lot of disharmony and discord. I think you would do well to consider the rest of us have made reasonable, well-informed choices for choosing the experts and sources we listen to.

[Robert]

I'd like to have a discussion about facts.

It would do me, and probably you, no benefit to get the subpoena and read it. I would have no idea what any of it means or if it was a fair subpoena. I have to rely on experts. I presented you the summed up words of my experts. I am not what what other facts I can provide.

[Robert]

Then you falsely claim I'm quoting CNN or some journalist

I did not call you out by name. If I remember right, I made a general statement. Feel free to attach it to you or detach from it.

[Bootstrap]

Then you falsely claim I'm quoting CNN or some journalist

I did not call you out by name. If I remember right, I made a general statement. Feel free to attach it to you or detach from it.

When you respond to a post I wrote and say "you", I often assume you are referring to me, even if you do not mention me by name. Here's the statement you made:

Maybe you are only finding the facts that some want you to find and just making certain facts easy to find. When you use NYT and CNN, they do not report the whole facts, only the facts they want you to see.

In fact, I am often reading the original court documents and subpoenas and claims made by both sides before I respond to something like this. I generally read or listen to discussions among experts who have very different perspectives. And I think I am usually trying to focus on what the basic facts are.

[Bootstrap]

I'd like to have a discussion about facts.

It would do me, and probably you, no benefit to get the subpoena and read it. I would have no idea what any of it means or if it was a fair subpoena. I have to rely on experts. I presented you the summed up words of my experts. I am not what what other facts I can provide.

Maybe that's part of the problem. I do read things like subpoenas before offering opinions on them. And I read multiple opinions by different experts. And I take statements by members of Trump's legal teams as statements by members of Trump's legal teams.

In fact, even Dershowitz, who served on Trump's legal team in his first Senate impeachment trial in 2020, says that the subpoena was valid. He also says the raid was justified. He thinks the search warrant should have been narrower.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3 ... -evidence/

The affidavit contains sufficient factual basis for Magistrate Judge Reinhardt to find probable cause to issue a search warrant. The standard for issuing a search warrant is very low, and any federal or magistrate judge would have issued a warrant based on the unredacted information contained in the affidavit. So, Magistrate Judge Reinhardt should not be criticized for his decision to issue the warrant.

Strangely, though, Dershowitz seems to be saying the DOJ needed to specify exactly where the documents were. That's unusual. You can get a search warrant for someone's house. Maralago is certainly bigger than a house, but the DOJ search warrant excluded the areas where guests are, and specified only the areas where boxes of documents might be stored.

Other experts I have heard debate this seem to disagree with Dershowitz here.

Trump has a very Trump-friendly judge in this case, he can try to make that argument in court and exclude the evidence. I doubt he would succeed. Regardless, I think that judge is unlikely to act quickly on this case. If Trump is re-eleected, I bet he will pardon himself for all federal crimes.

[GaryK]

Trump has a very Trump-friendly judge in this case, he can try to make that argument in court and exclude the evidence. I doubt he would succeed. Regardless, I think that judge is unlikely to act quickly on this case. If Trump is re-eleected, I bet he will pardon himself for all federal crimes.

Interesting that you seem to be admitting here that the American justice system has biased judges in its system. Or is it only those judges who have been appointed by Republican presidents that have this problem?

[Robert]

In fact, even Dershowitz, who served on Trump's legal team in his first Senate impeachment trial in 2020, says that the subpoena was valid. He also says the raid was justified. He thinks the search warrant should have been narrower.

Correct. He has often said "you can indict a ham sandwich" too. He stressed that the warrant was way too broad and open ended. He has said this about multiple other cases too.

I know there are others who see things differently. They are not as libertarian as Alan Dershowitz. I am very libertarian also. This is why I agree with him on many things. I support a very libertarian interpretation of the Constitution and Amendments. This does not make me wrong. It is just my viewpoint and interpretation.

I do not trust the government. I expect most everything it says to be a lie or distortion. Historically, Anabaptists have learned not to trust governments. I feel I am in good company.

Some trust in chariots and horses ...

[Josh]

I don’t trust huge power structures which flex raw power and have people in them who don’t want to follow Jesus’ path of peace.

This includes big governments, big businesses, oligarchical families (what Steve calls “pedigree”), and can even include lumbering church institutions. Not to mention big universities, big nonprofits… the list goes on and on.

[Robert]

I do think this should be questioned. Why did the Capitol Police do this? Maybe there was a reason, but I have never heard it addressed. Was the aggressive reaction of the CP in response to anything, or did it actually become the thing that started the aggression?

[Bootstrap]

I do think this should be questioned. Why did the Capitol Police do this?

First question: Did the Capitol Police do what the tweet claims? If so, when and where? How did you verify the video? And his description of the video?

Does the handle "DC Draino" imply anything about who the poster is?