Federal Court Tells Proud Boys Defendants That Raiding The Capitol Building Isn't Covered By The First Amendment
from the this-is-just-free-speech,-they-said,-breaking-windows-and-trampling-cops dept
A handful of Proud Boys members charged with crimes related to the January 6th raid on the Capitol building are arguing their actions are protected by the First Amendment. According to the defendants, the raid they participated in was nothing more than a protest. Alternatively, they're arguing one of the laws being used against them is unconstitutionally overbroad, turning otherwise legal activity into illegal activity.
Unfortunately for these would-be insurrectionists, the DC federal court doesn't find any of their arguments sympathetic. (via Courthouse News Service)
This is the law the Proud Boys members are challenging, as related in the recitation of the indictment by the DC court [PDF]:
The First Superseding Indictment alleges that Defendants helped plan and orchestrate the events of January 6. Count One charges them with conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371. Defendants allegedly conspired “to stop, delay, or hinder Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), and “to obstruct and interfere with law enforcement officers engaged in their official duties to protect the Capitol and its occupants from those who had unlawfully advanced onto Capitol grounds,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3).
Defendants—who allegedly held leadership positions or planning roles with the “Proud Boys” organization—purportedly carried out this conspiracy by, among other things, encouraging other Proud Boys to attend the protest on January 6; “[u]sing websites, social media, and other electronic communications to raise funds to support travel and equipment purchases for the visit to Washington, D.C.”; “[o]btaining paramilitary gear and supplies—including tactical vests, protective equipment, and radio equipment—for the January 6 attack”; “[s]cheming to evade detection by law enforcement by dressing ‘incognito’ rather than wearing Proud Boys colors”; traveling to Washington, D.C., “prior to the attack”; using “programmable handheld radios, encrypted messaging applications, and other communications equipment to communicate and coordinate the January 6 attack”; “[d]ismantling” police barricades, and “[s]torming past” those barricades and law enforcement officers “in efforts to disrupt the proceedings at the Capitol”; and obtaining “entry into the Capitol building as a result of damage to windows and doors that otherwise would have precluded entry.”
Then there are the more overt acts, which turned the conspiracy into a reality. These included acquiring gear, mobilizing Proud Boys members, leading a group of Proud Boys into the Capitol building, using a riot shield to break a window to allow others to access the building, recording videos while inside the Capitol building, and spending the rest of the day celebrating their illegal actions via social media platforms and encrypted messaging services.
Here's the main argument the Proud Boy defendants offered in their motion to dismiss the indictment:
According to Defendants, Section 1512(c)(2) does not apply here because Congress’s certification was not an “official proceeding,” and the phrase “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes” is limited to conduct like the destruction or alteration of documents and other records. In addition, if the statute is not read as they propose, Defendants argue that it is vague as applied; contravenes the rule of lenity; conflicts with the novel-construction principle; and violates the First Amendment.
Here's the court's short take before it goes on to explain why:
None of these arguments succeeds.
Here's why:
[E]ven if an “official proceeding” had to be quasi-adjudicative or quasi-judicial in some way—a requirement missing from the plain text of the statute—because Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote has some of those features, it would pass the test. As explained above, it is a formal process. [...] In addition, the Vice President, as President of the Senate, serves as “presiding officer” while the votes cast by Electors are counted. 3 U.S.C. § 15. As in a court of law, members of Congress may object, which in turn causes the Senate and House of Representatives to separately consider and render their separate “decision[s]” on the objection.” Further, after the count is finished, the certification must end with a “result declared.”
The rest of the arguments fail as well. And here's what the court has to say about the statute as applied to the Proud Boys' alleged actions, which the defendants argue allows the government to punish them for engaging in protected speech. The court says the Proud Boys have no argument worth considering.
The Court first turns to the threshold question of whether the conduct with which Defendants are charged is protected by the First Amendment at all. [...] It is not. Defendants are alleged to have “corruptly” obstructed, influenced, and impeded an official proceeding, and aided and abetted others to do the same—that is, they allegedly “unlawfully entered the Capitol grounds or the Capitol building to . . . stop, delay, and hinder Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote,” and succeeded in doing so. And more specifically, they are charged with conduct involving acts of trespass, depredation of property, and interference with law enforcement, all intended to obstruct Congress’s performance of its constitutional duties. No matter Defendants' political motivations or any political message they wished to express, this alleged conduct is simply not protected by the First Amendment.
Perhaps some of their activities on January 6 may have been covered by the First Amendment, but the actions they're being charged for are not.
Defendants are not, as they argue, charged with anything like burning flags, wearing black armbands, or participating in mere sit-ins or protests. Moreover, even if the charged conduct had some expressive aspect, it lost whatever First Amendment protection it may have had.
The Proud Boys had plenty of available options to express their displeasure with the outcome of the 2020 election -- options fully protected by the First Amendment. Instead, they chose to violate a handful of laws.
Quite obviously, there were many avenues for Defendants to express their opinions about the 2020 presidential election, or their views about how Congress should perform its constitutional duties on January 6, without resorting to the conduct with which they have been charged.
The motion is denied. The Proud Boy defendants will continue to face charges for their coordinated raid on the Capitol. It may be that some of these charges fail to stick, but what's been alleged isn't covered by the First Amendment, something the defendants surely knew when they decided they could somehow reverse history by shutting down the certification of the presidential election results.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, capitol, insurrection, protests, proud boys, raiding the capitol
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Shorter version of the court’s message to those Proud Boys members: “Y’all can go stand back in jail and stand by for your trials.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you have no good argument, flail like mad
Can't imagine why the judge wasn't impressed with 'we have a first amendment right to try to overthrow an election', you mean to tell me that's not in there somewhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When you have no good argument, flail like mad
Summarizing it at "Proud Boy" level: The first amendment gives you no rights to break windows or physically assault people that just do their jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When you have no good argument, flail like mad
I know. Shocking, right?
Here I thought everything was covered by the First Amendment, up to and including shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are proud boys.... not smart boys.
One also has to wonder what 1st Amendment lawyers are calling the idiot who filed this thinking it would work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're calling him 'smart', because they wish they'd thought of it first.
Think about it - you're a lawyer, and you know this won't work, but you also know that you've just gotten a nice, fat retainer. Are you really gonna tell them that this won't work? No, you'll let the judge do the dirty work of disabusing them of that notion, whereupon you can say that you gave it your best shot, and you get to keep the money.
Second rule of lawyerdom - if the client has money, then he's never wrong!
(If I have to tell you what the first rule is, you haven't been paying attention.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And no one wonders why all these "1st Amendment" conservatives can't figure out what it actually says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Your honour, talking out of backsides is a key part of being a conservative, therefore forcing our way into the capitol building and smearing excrement on the walls is freedom of speech!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, now, Bloof. You shouldn't disparage those "conservative values" Koby keeps trying to bring up here all the time. The alt-right...oops, "conservatives" highly value what comes out of their mouths even when the irrelevant majority of people think that stuff should come out of the other end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And,..
...the court date for those "elected officials" that precipitated, aided and participated in said insurrection,...? the flying monkeys are superfluous,.. where is the bucket of water for those tinted green, or orange, as the cases may be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And,..
Charging a conspiracy works upwards, link by link in the chain, that's how it works with the mob, same principle here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proud and loud
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/j2lco2/im_a_proud_boy/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proud and loud
How dare you drag Ralph Wiggum–who has a good heart–into this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proud and loud
I apologize for insulting Ralph Wiggum...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Proud and loud
That's better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proud and loud
You should see the one I modified that added a GPS tracker to the ankle when one of my favorite Proud Boys was on house arrest.
And I did do the obligatory This is not who I am and this is not okay poster with Ralph holding up the Proud Boy version of himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say What?
"A handful of Proud Boys members charged with crimes related to the January 6th raid on the Capitol building are arguing their actions are protected by the First Amendment."
They are.
" According to the defendants, the raid they participated in was nothing more than a protest."
Correct. It was a protest against the rampant fraud of the election that everyone could see and knows occurred.
"Alternatively, they're arguing one of the laws being used against them is unconstitutionally overbroad, turning otherwise legal activity into illegal activity."
And they are obviously correct. So why would you not be supporting their law suit? Because you are for fascist totalitarians?
You apparently think that might makes right? I mean why would anyone who is for democracy write such an article? Weird. Worse than weird.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Say What?
No, that's what your Proud Boys believed. The gamble didn't pay off for them. Neither has it prompted your hero Donald Trump to yank them out from the bus he threw them under.
How's those ivermectin injections coming along broski?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Say What?
"They are."
After your strident calls that peaceful BLM protests deserved military intervention you now claim that people who invaded the capitol and beat the cop guarding it do death are within the bounds of 1A?
No, the US constitution quite clearly spells out that you are free to speak. You are not free to attempt to physically disrupt the election process. By your own constitution that is called insurrection.
That you can't english is your problem, not ours.
"Correct. It was a protest against the rampant fraud of the election that everyone could see and knows occurred."
You mean the one of which even republican vote watchers couldn't see an issue? The one where, when called upon in court, every last one of your people had to confess they had nothing but their own words for it?
The GOP did investigate the election and as you may recall the only voter fraud which was found was some of you guys trying to vote twice.
"And they are obviously correct. So why would you not be supporting their law suit?"
Because every actual expert of law and court of the land says otherwise?
"Because you are for fascist totalitarians?"
Says the man who has been advocating fascist totalitarianism in a hundred or more comments clearly visible by just scrolling down his comment history a few pages.
Give it a fscking rest already. The only thing you've convinced everyone on the fence about by now is that your side has to lie in every argument you make. You need to take that shit right back to the Stormfront circle jerk you people have got going, where the already deluded appreciate some online rando telling them their most dystopian derangements are true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Say What?
You mean the one of which even republican vote watchers couldn't see an issue? The one where, when called upon in court, every last one of your people had to confess they had nothing but their own words for it?
The GOP did investigate the election and as you may recall the only voter fraud which was found was some of you guys trying to vote twice.
The evidence is in canada you see, it's super-duper totally real but you wouldn't know them.
Alternatively the evidence is magical and it's strength it inversely proportional to it's ability to be demonstrated, so the fact that it can't be demonstrated at all just serves to show how insanely good it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Say What?
If there is no evidence, then the democrats obviously hid it.
This only proves how good they were at stealing the election!
(/sarcasm)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Say What?
It's of great entertainment value that in order to even begin to consider the 'stolen election' lie viable you essentially have to start from the position that either the democrats across the country are vastly smarter and more able to plan than the republicans involved, the republicans involved are incredibly stupid and easy to fool, or a mix of the two.
'There's no solid evidence because the other side is way smarter than us' makes for an interesting argument/own-goal to say the least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Say What?
Of course not.
The republicans are super smart too because they can find election fraud without any evidence. How isn't that proof for both that the democrat cheated and that republicans are smarter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Say What?
"...you essentially have to start from the position that either the democrats across the country are vastly smarter and more able to plan than the republicans involved, the republicans involved are incredibly stupid and easy to fool, or a mix of the two."
Less entertaining when you consider that exact scenario is one of the more telling defining characteristics of fascists; The opposition is simultaneously contemptibly weak, feeble-minded and easily intimidated cowards - while at the same time being capable of persistent superhuman feats of power when it comes to oppressing the "Chosen Ones".
I refer to you here the nazi mythology of the jewish untermensch along with their belief that subhuman epitome of cowardice and short-sighted self-destructive greed managed to rule the damn world through super-secret shadow cabals.
Just recall Marjorie Taylor-Greene's "Jewish space lasers". In the eyes of the conspiracy nut the "opposition" is always portrayed as a superhuman capable of mind control and time travel while having access to super sci-fi technology. While being "inferior".
"'There's no solid evidence because the other side is way smarter than us' makes for an interesting argument/own-goal to say the least."
I used to counter neo-nazi conspiracy nuts with the statement "Gosh, we all need to convert to judaism. If you are to be believed we get super-powers and access to the Death Star if we do".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Say What?
Whoa! Stop right there, asshole!!
Apparently, you've been reading the Pledge of Allegiance a little too closely. For starters, a democracy means that the people vote publicly on some given item. In our case, it's mostly for representation in a larger venue. A republic is composed of those representatives. Do note the "re-" prefix before the word "public" - one step removed from the entire population doing the day-to-day work of overseeing the necessary details of managing a given society. It does NOT mean "give the public the finger after being elected".
So, as I see it now, a very large percentage of Republicans are doggedly giving me the impression that the Pledge is all about them, and nothing about democracy, i.e. Democrats. I'm beginning to suspect some cherry-picking going on here, and not all of it is being made palatable to those of us with an inquisitive minds.
tl;dr:
Shut the fuck up with your crap, all you're doing is heading down Koby-lane, the road where I automatically flag you no matter what you say. You've demonstrated completely and unalterably that you have no desire to make Mrs. Johnson, your 5th grade teacher, proud of you for showing initiative in doing your own homework. Blind copying of someone else's work will just get you sent to detention all that much more quickly. Asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Say What?
"Shut the fuck up with your crap, all you're doing is heading down Koby-lane..."
Look through some of "Restless94110"'s commentary. He's way beyond Koby-lane.
By now I assume he only shows up here to copy-paste some argument which went down real well in his normal Stormfront forum and he still doesn't grok why anyone outside of that place refuses to give him the reciprocal reacharound over him stroking their egos by affirming their beliefs in the dystopian fairy tale they cling to.
The only thing he brings to the table is a reminder that the alt-right left their sanity by the roadside years back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
Unfortunately for these misguided would-be patriots…
Be it torching a federal court house with people inside or breaking into the capital building; breaking the law is breaking the law.
I don’t care who you are or what you stand for!
When you break the law you should be punished under the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FTFY
[Halucinates facts contrary to all evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FTFY
It’s unfortunate you are completely and absolutely unable to accept that just shy of 50% if the population questions that election.
I will not condone the illegal actions of a small group on that day.
You ignore that the majority of people who claimed accurate and fair happen to be members of a party coming into power.
That they state no verification necessary is less than convincing on its own.
That a handful went further than protest and broke the law does not negate the concern any more than a handful violent thugs negate the message of uncontrollable police abuses.
But standing up for your vote is the American way.
Every citizen has the right to vote and every legally cast vote must be counted.
Every illegally cast vote must be discarded.
And everyone must speak up when their vote is at concern.
Violence and trespass and fear are not the correct method but the concern is none the less just.
This moment of time falls short of abolishment. It simply wasn’t insurrection. Unwise behaviour. Illegal acts from a few.
But far from an insurrection.
A key fact that the commission, democrats as a whole, and you; refuse to comprehend: the protest was against the potential future government, not a current seated one.
You can not have an insurrection against a government that does not exist.
For all that can be said of that day, there simply was not an insurrection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FTFY
And you incontrovertibly prove me correct. Well done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
Simple yes or no. Did any person or persons inside or outside the capital that day attempt to overthrow any aspect of the government that was in office tat day?
No. The Trump administration was still in office. It’s that simple.
Even if the Left’s conspiracy theory of some organised dismissal of the results (rather than the complete verified recount nearly every Republican called for) is accurate it still doesn’t rise to insurrection. You may get some by the text judge to say treason. That could be argued for a few people involved.
But there was no insurrection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
As usual, those do not not mean what you pretend in bad faith they mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
I say exactly what I mean.
For the first time since partisan poll watchers were adopted, they were missing in 2020.
Whilst I have always accepted that statistics of other race wins show it likely Trump lost; I will not ignore the factual claim that these results were counted and certified without standard monitoring.
Ignore it all you want in your choice winning but the faith in our system is shaken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
See my response above, but it seems you are using government and administration interchangeably for one of two reasons, one: to make the false argument that it wasn't an insurrection against the "current" government, two: you have have no grasp on the difference between a government and an administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FTFY
It's not 50%, it's far less than that. Regardless, it only means that those people are too stupid to accept factual reality.
And you apparently ignore every republican election-monitor who said the election was accurate and fair. Why is that? Are they suddenly Democrats in disguise or do they don't count as Republican anymore because they don't agree with the orange buffoon?
A key fact is that it's the same government now as before the election so your twisty little argument is based on a faulty assumption. The only thing that changed is the administration, not the government since it doesn't suddenly cease to exist during a change in leadership.
That also means it actually was an insurrection against the government who where in the process of validating the transfer of power to the new administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
It is, by all polls that ask about the election and not the result.
A key difference so many refuse to comprehend.
I ignore nothing. I find it unacceptable that the faith in our elections have been shaken. The people with questions, there are enough, that it is concerning.
As far as government and administration go, in American politics they are, generally, interchangeable.
The entire ruling party can switch in an election here. Everything is constantly rotating.
Ultimately, you may be able to find treason by legal definition… for a small few that day.
But you won’t get insurrection.
I suggest you look at Egypt, Iran, Ireland, Viet Nam, Korea,… those were insurrections. Organised armed rebellions targeting the whole of the governmental system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
So here is the deal, you are ignoring every republican who monitored the election because you rather believe a lie. You are the type of person who will get people killed because you can't accept factual reality, just like the idiots who stormed the Capitolium which lead to 7 deaths and over hundred injured police officers.
And the shaken "faith" in the elections is entirely due to one person, the orange buffoon. I have to ask myself what kind of person listens to a known liars wordsalad and thinks "oh, he's telling the truth!", and the only answer I can come up with is a fucking idiot who should be legally declared incapacitated.
Blah blah blah... You had to fucking go and move the goalpost once again, go read the definition for an insurrection you yourself posted ffs. Seems you have severe problems being honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
What lie am I believing?
And what Republican monitors?
As there was no monitoring.
There’s little doubt based on statistics that Trump was voted out of office.
That doesn’t change the fact that poll watchers weren’t able to watch.
Such a situation must NEVER be allowed to happen again.
The shaken faith is due to the violation of long accepted practice of having poll watchers in place.
Had their been poll watchers there wouldn’t be these questions.
Oh: Trump was president on Jan 6th. The relatively small assault that had broken out of that protest, criminals they were, were not trying to overthrow the Trump lead government.
No insurrection.
And maybe if people like you would stop lumping those who worry about future integrity of elections with the tiny loud crybaby group of stollen election zombies maybe you’d have some progress on the whole unify-the-country aspect.
I’m more interested in making sure election counts can be verified than any conspiracy about hanging chads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
You mean those proud white guys hanging around poll centers with weapons, making casual remarks about how much of a shame they would have to swing into action if they thought something was wrong?
Those watchers? Who had their moment of trying to be badass, then got angry when the election didn't turn out the way they wanted, and no Republicans were able to bring forth any proof that anything was amiss when asked?
There's no need for "lumping", your "those who worry about future integrity" have by and large insisted there's no need to punish the "tiny loud crybaby group". Of course, it helped that they failed in their attempt so your team could conveniently throw them under the bus, same way that Trump did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
I must apologise. I didn’t realise your level of understanding in the voting process was lacking.
You may want to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrutineer
… that is if you care to educate yourself.
Poll watchers are a legitimate position. They are members of the parties on the ballot.
They sit, or stand, in direct view of the ballot counters as ballots are being counted.
Their job is but one, to verify, as ballots are counted, that the count is accurate.
They, poll watchers, are part of the state election process. By law in most states. By general practice in a few others.
There lack of direct access to the ballots being counted is the primary issue in many states including Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia.
When your job is to watch and record ballots as they are counted and your in another room, banned completely, or sent home for a utility issue, and the count happens anyway?
That’s a violation of the security and accuracy of our election process.
Covid was the claimed fault. But much like how I support vaccination mandates in health and hospitality…
If you were unwilling or unable to do the job you had, as a watcher or as a counter: that is if you were unwilling to sit next to or be sat next to… you give up your job to someone willing and able to do the job properly. End of discussion.
You follow the rules set out in statutes or step aside for someone willing to do it properly.
Otherwise the process is suspect.
My team? I’ve called for every violent protester to be arrested. Jan 6 and BLM.
Break the law go to jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
Yeah.. no.. You just seem unable to stop sucking on Trump's teat of lies. Of course, you are free to provide evidence for you assertion that they where unable to verify the ballots being counted.
And it's not like there are procedures in place to call for a recount if the poll watchers think something isn't right.. Oh wait, there is...
Yeah..seems I'm right.. Simpletons think everything is soo simple. You are aware that there actually are rules and regulations in place for workers rights, right? Forcing workers to be exposed to a pandemic is an OSHA violation. The people counting the votes are the workers, the monitors aren't workers - hence they can take a hike if they can't abide by the rules.
Regardless, you whole fucking argument about the election monitoring is based on a big lie perpetrated by the orange buffoon because he has the ego of a puff pastry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
Well here’s the first hit. Texas:
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/poll-watchersworkers-may-perform-duties-wi thin-6ft-others
Which already tells you right off it’s too far away. This was the standard in many lean-blue states and most cities. Cities like Chicago and Detroit who implemented state distance directives in violation of state election laws.
https://kslnewsradio.com/1934875/2020-election-explained-what-are-the-rules-for-poll-watchers/
…h as a nice breakdown based on Utah law. Which is the general idea across most states.
We had ballots counted in Fulton Georgia and Philadelphia in absence of watchers.
In some states Republican watchers were refused entry based on local covid occupancy restrictions, such as Georgia, Florida, and Colorado.
How about keeping them in an entirely different room, with windows covered, as happened in some Detroit locations?
All these actions are outside of the legal state regulations. Outside of state congressional bodies.
It would just as much be Democrats complaining it Trump was re-elected.
This can not happen again.
I have not once said fraud changed anything. I point out that such disregard for rules set in place by states should never again be allowed to be ignored. Because it invites fraud.
Find people willing to do the job they are hired for. If your unable to do so step aside for someone who will.
The poll watchers are part of the verification process. Taking a hike, as you say, is NOT an option.
They are volunteers there to verify the consistency and accuracy of the count.
They are there under state regulations voted for by congressional groups and passed by governors.
They can not be disregarded. Regardless of any pandemic situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
I see you are confused, figures. We where talking about election monitors who watches the ballots being counted, not poll watchers watching people vote. Striiiike
That does not mean that there where no republican monitors, just that there where limited spots open for monitors - regardless of their party affiliation. Seems you can't stop yourself for complaining how victimized the poor republican monitors where while ignoring the rules where the same for everyone. Equality really sucks when you are used to privilege and entitlement, huh?
Never happened, but windows where covered up to protect the workers and the ballots from being filmed:
An attorney for the city of Detroit, Lawrence Garcia, tells me he ordered some of the windows be covered because some of the workers nearest the windows felt concerned with people outside potentially filming them or ballots. Not all the windows were blocked.
You sure about that? The state has quite some leeway in how they conduct their elections. You are free to mention what regulations have been broken.
The state sets it own rules, as I mentioned above - but please point out which rules/regulations have been disregarded, and by that I want to see a link to the rule/regulation in question and proof it was disregarded.
So you are saying that if workers follow the rules/regulations in place which makes it impossible for them to do their work in a certain situation, it's their fault for not said breaking rules/regulations and they should step aside so someone else can break those rules/regulation? So why is it that you think some rules/regulations are just fine to break while others must be adhered to in minute detail?
You are just another inconsistent asshole carrying water for the orange buffoon, QAnon and all the other grifters. You are fucking moron who are addicted to the lies being fed to you, because your fragile mind can't deal with reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
The terms drift but both those who watch voting and those who watch counting were effected.
Yet some locations had none.
Except… the watchers were also outside those windows.
Yes; quite. Doesn’t matter if the president or the governor. A proclamation can not ignore law. That’s why so many lawsuits happen against proclamations. Except when the time frame is days or weeks no court hearing has a chance to fix the concern.
A Governor, or mayor, etc, issuing rules in difference to state laws voted on by the state government is without legal standing by the state. Hence lawsuits.
Many which were dismissed as they came to docket after the elections.
It’s quite simple. A state Governor nor city mayor has the ability to overrule state election laws.
Covid-based executive proclamations that violated election laws are invalid. The election locations had the duty to carry out elections as per the state voted and passed laws. Not the whims of some executive.
What part of Trump lost makes my comments have anything to do with Trump theories on the election?
This is not about the results of 2020. It’s the integrity of the election stem.
I’m not a q saying trump won. I’m a citizen of this country saying it’s wrong to see an executive override voted for laws. At any level.
Poll watchers, by any term, are vital to the process.
The people who watch the votes. And the people who watch the count.
Who wins isn’t the concern. The integrity of the process is.
Without all of the balance in place:
Either you trust the winning party or ruling party to be honest.
Or you trust that 100% of the voting population to be honest.
Or both.
I’ve never heard of an honest politician. Not 100%.
Not even Lincoln or Washington.
The fact that this country has fraud crime covers the other.
The election process must be protected above all else. No matter what the circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
The election process must be protected above all else. No matter what the circumstances.
By your Jan 6th jokers? Yeah, they sure did a splendid job protecting jack shit.
For all the huff and bluff you keep making with your claims of supposed legitimacy, the fact that all you managed to send was a team of LARPing neckbeards goes to show you don't put your money where your mouth is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
I have to commend you on sticking to your beliefs.
But I remind you there is more than the two new-worthy parties in this country.
I didn’t send anyone anywhere.
I didn’t put much effort into watching anything either. All of my response to Jan 6 is from publicly available video footage.
And I’d like to remind you protests in general rarely make any immediate change. If any at all.
It’s a public announcement by a group of like minded individuals.
While you harp on a few private citizen criminals who vandalised and trespassed—as bad as it was— and paint the whole of the protest FNC style as violent…
I’m looking at the large number of violations in election law across the country.
It’s not who won for me.
It’s the damage at the state and local levels.
There was no wide spread fraud this election.
What we did have was wide scale violation of LAW! And as of today none of those state or local members of government who issued orders in violation of election law have been heals accountable for. Their most grievous of crimes against the election system. Crimes against the citizens of this nation.
The very nature of our Republic depends on the citizen faith, and involvement, in the governmental process. The monitoring and verification.
Checks and balances.
Instead 2020 produced for us dictators who changed, modified, and ignored, the election process at will. Outside of the legislative system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
"Poll watchers are a legitimate position. They are members of the parties on the ballot. They sit, or stand, in direct view of the ballot counters as ballots are being counted. "
And, lo and behold, there WERE poll watchers. In fact some of more contentious areas had republican poll watchers.
The only ones who keep claiming there were issues with the election are the ones who were unable to produce even an indication there had been malfeasance in front of a judge.
Some of whom are now in very hot water indeed because their flagrant lying has prompted enough discovery motions to reveal their one and only remaining defense is the Tucker Carlson defense.
At this point in time, Lostin, that lie needs to assume the democrats are all friggin Mission Impossible style super-ninjas able to mind control a nation's worth of bureaucracy.
This is no longer credible. Make up your mind already. Either the democrats are all corrupt and inept or they are paragons of godlike competence wielding superhuman power. They can't be both.
When a conspiracy theory needs to assume the opposition is both contemptibly weak and inept AND of godlike power...that's when you've stumbled headlong into Hitler's old recipe of portraying the scapegoat as both too strong and too weak.
And that's a bad place to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
What the fuck are you smoking? There certainly where monitoring but that's something you conveniently ignore because it doesn't fit your stupid narrative. Every fucking US election since the 19th century have had poll watchers monitoring, was that some kind of drug-induced hallucination now? How about you pull your head out of your ass and smell some factual reality.
So you have proof that the counts for the last election wasn't verified? Or is this your stupidity talking again while ignoring factual reality? How stupid are you since you seem to believe every lie the orange buffoon have instigated. The election was monitored, there was no election fraud going on, period.
You are a fucking moron, no doubt about it. It's a state of mind you have willingly chosen to descend into. It doesn't fucking matter who was the president or what administration was in power, it's still an attack on the government in an attempt to derail the democratic process of handing over the power to a new administration.
Why shouldn't I lump you together? You have exactly the same talking points and dishonest arguments all the while ignoring factual reality. If it looks like a turd, smells like a turd and someone shat it out on the Capitolium rotunda, it's a fucking turd - no questions about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
In many districts, especially in major cities, poll watcher were not within a distance capable of seeing the ballots.
In others they were barred outright. such as Chicago and Detroit.
They were sent home while counting continued, such as Pennsylvania.
The majority could not read ballots. 6 feet is too far for that.
Can you read a ballot from six feet away?
It’s not about fraud (I doubt there was much more than any other election).
It’s about the process.
I’m still upset the 2000 recount was stopped.
It’s never been about the winner for me. Some of us care about the process. Not the winner.
The process was comprised.
I don’t care if rover the dog won.
As long as it won within the boundaries of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
"I'm not a Republican, I just throw myself at everything they say and cry bitter salty tears when they do."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
Funny. You need to back and look into the process of elections in this country. Rather than what any news source says. Start with the wiki link above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
I'll note that you didn't disagree with the commentary on your affiliation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
Because you’ll find zero history of my policy affiliation with them beyond supporting the right to our armament.
Your a partisan troll. Incapable of thinking outside your party.
My isolationist preference puts me outside of either main party.
I doubt there’s many Republicans out there willing to support an omnisexual agnostic.
And given I support capture and conversion over reduction the green streak of the Dems and their ban-it policy will never welcome me.
Oh; there’s a minor issue keeping me out of either party:
Papers please! I support a national ID issued free of charge to every citizen of this country. And separate colour coded IDs for residents and short term visitors who are not citizens.
To be required to be displayed on demand without probable cause.
Reps want to tax less and dems want to target individuals. I say tax the corporations. Any over 1B in revenue, not profits.
I support national social pay, to every citizen regardless of personal value. Of 20-28,000 per year paid 1/12th monthly via direct deposit.
I support a 10% flat tax with zero deductions and a 28,000 credit on any person making over 28,000 starting a 28,001.
I support an immigration tracking system that records every person that crosses the border. In or out.
None of this fits the majority mindset of either party. But it’s less likely to fit Republican belief than Democrat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
Nah. I just enjoy idiots embarrassing themselves after they lose comprehensively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
They weren't, but I guess that tells me where you get your "news". Some watchers weren't allowed in because there already where enough watchers at the location.
Nice deflection there asshole, but to answer your deflection a watcher can always ask to see a ballot. So once again, do you have proof that the counts for the last election wasn't verified?
You sure are carrying water for all the assholes and grifters though, which makes me believe that your "never been about the winner" spiel is just that, a spiel.
And caring about the process? Please, you haven't said one word about how the orange buffoon and the former administration repeatedly raped rules, regulations and "the process". What you have done though, is to make excuses to defend them. You may believe you "only care about the process" but that only makes you a fool who deludes himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
Very political move to answer the question without answering.
Can you read a ballot from six feet away?
No.
So the poll watchers were unable to verify they process.
Where did the Trump administration do anything during and leading to the election that violated the legally passed laws and rules and regulations?
In fact, where did they violate them afterwards?
I remind you claiming an election is stolen is protected speech.
It’s the right of any citizen to challenge the vote.
Etc.
Your so obsessed with the who you ignore the why. And the why is just as reasonable today as it was in 2000.
I have zero doubt you would be complaining if the election went the other way.
The difference is I’d be with you in concern if Trump won.
A governor can not modify election laws alone.
Let me touch on your opening.
No. The already had occupancy limit set by the mayor; at least in Chicago’s case. Not the number set in state regulation.
Democrats arrived early and took the spots set by the mayor.
So yes, barred outright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
Can a watcher ask to see a ballot? Yes they can and it's something your sorry ass is ignoring because it doesn't fit your myopic narrative. Or do you fucking expect a watcher to watch EVERY ballot?
They could verify it just fine, and if they couldn't they would have asked for a recount.. Oh wait, some of them did.. See, the process works but stupid people like you ignore that. This is the most scrutinized election in the US and there is zero evidence of widespread or organized voter-fraud. You are a like a fucking anti-vaxxer, people can put up fact after fact but you rather believe a grifter with a twitter-account.
A bunch of them campaigned while in office, ie broke the Hatch-act. Caputo tried to gag federal employees. Trump leaned on Ukraine to get dirt on Biden. Trump violated the first amendment by blocking users on Twitter. The administration/Trump broke the separation of powers rule (steel tariffs, bombing of Syria). The "funding" of the wall, ie took from a military budget. Using his own property for government meetings while charging the government exorbitant fees. Using his role as president to drum up business to his and his family's businesses. Trump calling up senators demanding that they change the states electoral votes. Trump demanding the DOJ/Barr to change the election result. Trump telling Mike Pence not to ratify the electoral votes. There's more shit too, but I can't be bothered to add it because you are just going to ignore it - just like how you ignore everything else that tells you that you are wrong.
Yes, telling lies happens to be protected by the first amendment but it doesn't make them true and I wonder what the fuck the relevance is except you saying it's okay to lie and you believing in the lies.
I'm not at all interested in the who, I just see a stupid asshole repeating lies that the grifter in chief spewed forth. You are so fucking mired in Trumps mindfuck, it's sad to see a grown man have a worse grasp of reality than some drunk on bad moonshine.
Well, it's already proven that a majority of voter-fraud has been perpetrated by republicans/conservatives so far - but apparently they are so fucking inept I wouldn't worry much about that.
I would think something like that would get a tad more circulation, but there's nothing to find on the net about Chicago turning away watchers so how about a little link that factually reports this? Hmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
Yes. As they have always (supposed to have) done.
I didn’t say there was. Rather I point out that with so many illicit, that is in violation of state election laws, changes it could easily invite fraud in the future.
In office, not from office. No violation.
So charge him if he did something wrong.
To restart the investigation that Biden got canned.
I disagree with this. And always will. Private space used for public governance is still private.
You have, or should have, the right to say sod off and ask someone or somewhere else.
Presidential power,
potentially. The president’s ability to make war as opposed to respond to war is a very thin line.
A defensive tool for national security
I have no knowledge on this
Intentionally inaccurate
He can say anything he wants. And as President of the senate Pence had that ability if he chose to use it regardless of Trump’s words.
Given my belief has remained consistent and documented, there is no statistical reasoning in a Trump win based on the other results.
Those conclusions do not eliminate the possibility … follow distancing guidelines to prevent the spread of COVID-19 …
~snopes
…some locations may limit the total number of people in the building or rooms… ~elections.il.gov
There’s a difference between q’s running around claiming fraud with no evidence—and those of us pointing out non-legislated changes that can be abused going forward.
If a state governor, or local mayor, wants to change things you hold an emergency session, craft the changes to bill, and vote.
There was more than enough time to do that in 2020. And here we are in 22 and none on the left address this issue.
Sadly, many on the right ignore it for other voting changes such as verification of voter identity and right to vote.
A national ID for every citizen and legal resident would solve any identification issues so these bills on voter ID are problematic as they address the result and not the cause of ID issue.
But ID means nothing if we have no secondary, non-governmental-citizen, monitoring of the process and the count.
I do not suggest fraud changed the 2020 election.
I point out non-legal-process changes open up major potential for fraud and abuse later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
"The fact that I continue to lay my body over puddles for the people who suggest fraud changed the 2020 election so their precious toesie-woesies don't get wet on filthy leftist water is entirely coincidental. Really, honest."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
Yep. Exactly.
Everyone has the right to their own opinions about anything.
We live in a country where the vast majority believe in some dude or dudette floating around in the sky.
Personally I think the fraud conspiracy takes away from the actual illegal acts that dis occur!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FTFY
"I'll just continue to give them the benefit of the doubt and carry their water until it herniates my back and turns me into a quadriplegic so they can walk over a puddle without muddying their feet while I kiss their sacred toesie-woesies."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FTFY
"Unfortunately for these misguided would-be patriots…"
...who walked into the center of the history they claim to hold so high where they then proceeded to shit on the floor and smear the damn walls with it.
I'm afraid the US chapter of the Sturmabteilung aren't so easily classifiable as "patriots"...who through history have all, it should be noted, been potty-trained.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's some of what actually happened at the capitol during the Jan 6 terrorist attack, courtesy of the Proud Boys' comrades-in-arms the Oathkeepers:
https://i.imgur.com/3vR2kKV.png
https://i.imgur.com/6xppwMP.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/LDU MBCk. jpg
Contrast this evidence with the false narratives you see above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most, if not all, who attended did so unarmed.
The breach of the capital occurred without armament.
The police gave them permission to remain if they did not break the law.
Multiple calls from the protestors for calm and peaceful assembly were declared INSIDE the capital.
Video evidence of all this exists.
https://kprcradio.iheart.com/featured/walton-and-johnson/content/2021-05-18-newly-surfaced-video-re veals-police-allowed-protesters-to-enter-capitol/
There’s hours of such related footage.
From then police opening the doors and letting them in. To telling them where to stay and where to go.
But focus on the rogue group of window smashers. Outside and in!
Criminals who deserve punishment.
The reality is like most of the other protests over the last two years the 99% were peaceful.
The only wanted, demanded, to be heard.
And I agree, the idiot who crapped on the floor… throw whatever you want at that fuck.
That’s disrespectful. That’s biological terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]