Coup in the USA?

[Katheryne Helendale]

It seems the GQP have kinda painted themselves into a corner, haven't they. I'll go get the popcorn.

 

[Romana]

 

[Free]

When will she be asking more than 20 Democratic Senators the same questions?

 

[Romana]

When will she be asking more than 20 Democratic Senators the same questions?

Maybe they had answers so it’s not a story.
The Republicans who couldn’t answer, well, they could be clueless, that seems to be a requirement for them these days. Or more likely they don't want the truth to come out and aren't quite stupid enough to say why.
Which Democrats fit those categories? And would even a clueless Dem not want to know the truth?

 

[Free]

Maybe they had answers so it’s not a story.

How is that not a story? Do newspapers regularly ask people questions and if they get direct answers, they squash the piece?

Which Democrats fit those categories? And would even a clueless Dem not want to know the truth?

I'm sorry, what?

I assumed the "focus" of the article was Senators' answers to questions about the January 6 Commission. Wouldn't it be an interesting read to compare the responses of Republican vs Democratic Senators?

 

[Romana]

How is that not a story? Do newspapers regularly ask people questions and if they get direct answers, they squash the piece?



I'm sorry, what?

I assumed the "focus" of the article was Senators' answers to questions about the January 6 Commission. Wouldn't it be an interesting read to compare the responses of Republican vs Democratic Senators?

The focus of the article seems to be on why the Republican Senators don't want the inquiry.
The way the article starts, it suggests either her or her editor feel people have heard enough of why the people who want the inquiry want it (and that world be the Dems) so that part's not a story to them, as I said.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

A lawyer for the 'QAnon Shaman' said his client's mental health is rapidly declining in jail and asked for his release

A federal judge ordered Jacob Chansley — aka the "QAnon Shaman"— to undergo a mental evaluation after his attorney said he's not handling jail well.

www.insider.com

 

[bubblesort]

I love Q Shaman's lawyer! I mean, yeah, he's offensive as hell, but he's just so refreshingly honest, I just can't be mad about it. All lawyers are obnoxious, but to get some honesty out of one is rare.

 

[Soen Eber]

A New Study Shows Us the Single Biggest Motivation for the Jan. 6 Rioters | Amanpour and Company

tl/dnr: middle-aged middle-upper-class whites fear of great replacement theory

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Government Defends Seizure of $90k from Capitol Siege Defendant Who Sold Video to CNN, NBC

Federal authorities have seized more than $90,000 from a bank account owned by a defendant charged with playing a role in the Jan. 6 siege on the U.S. Capitol.

lawandcrime.com

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I was going to do this as a separate post, but then I saw Gov had "liked" the story on its own, and I didn't know what she'd make of my comparison, so here it is separately:

Yet another difference between the US and the UK -- here, a specialist prosecution unit would ask a judge to make a Restraint Order, freezing the assets in question, until the outcome of the investigation and any subsequent prosecution.

It's only after the defendant is convicted that the prosecution apply for forfeiture on the Proceeds of Crime Act at the sentencing stage of the trial, and the the judge deals with the application then, along with any other ancillary orders (compensation, restraining orders, etc).

If there's no prosecution or the defendant is acquitted, then of course any restraining orders are cancelled and he can take the money out of his bank again (or sell his shares or house or whatever).

I don't get it -- people in the US get so riled up about the government interfering with their rights to bear arms, or say hateful things, or be bigots, or whatever, but I'd have thought that Conservatives in particular would be worried that law enforcement can get away with this.

 

[Romana]

Government Defends Seizure of $90k from Capitol Siege Defendant Who Sold Video to CNN, NBC

Federal authorities have seized more than $90,000 from a bank account owned by a defendant charged with playing a role in the Jan. 6 siege on the U.S. Capitol.

lawandcrime.com

I was going to do this as a separate post, but then I saw Gov had "liked" the story on its own, and I didn't know what she'd make of my comparison, so here it is separately:

Yet another difference between the US and the UK -- here, a specialist prosecution unit would ask a judge to make a Restraint Order, freezing the assets in question, until the outcome of the investigation and any subsequent prosecution.

It's only after the defendant is convicted that the prosecution apply for forfeiture on the Proceeds of Crime Act at the sentencing stage of the trial, and the the judge deals with the application then, along with any other ancillary orders (compensation, restraining orders, etc).

If there's no prosecution or the defendant is acquitted, then of course any restraining orders are cancelled and he can take the money out of his bank again (or sell his shares or house or whatever).

I don't get it -- people in the US get so riled up about the government interfering with their rights to bear arms, or say hateful things, or be bigots, or whatever, but I'd have thought that Conservatives in particular would be worried that law enforcement can get away with this.

It says the guy's on audio and video participating, not just "documenting". If that was really all he had been doing, he'd not have been cheering them on.
I don't know all the legal specifics, but I do know it's illegal to profit from a crime.
The money should go to the families of the officers who died in the riot he encouraged the escalation of.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

It says the guy's on audio and video participating, not just "documenting". If that was really all he had been doing, he'd not have been cheering them on.
I don't know all the legal specifics, but I do know it's illegal to profit from a crime.
The money should go to the families of the officers who died in the riot he encouraged the escalation of.

Yes, but that should happen after he's been convicted of something, I think, not before.

In the UK, a judge would have issued an order freezing the money in his bank account, or his other assets, but the government couldn't just seize it.

It should, I think, remain his property (even though he can't use it) until he's been convicted of something and a court then confiscates it and disposes of it in whatever way.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

But that would shut down all kinds of non-judicial punishments and reduce police income from seizures.

 

[Govi]

As Argent implied, police at many levels in our system have been legally authorized to seize assets (without court order) alleged to be from illegal activities. By itself, I think that's a very bad thing and has been abused, now requiring a freed defendant to sue the government for the return of those assets. Properly, that authorization should be repealed. Seizure should be required to be done only upon a court order. However, our Constitution has been used to play fast and loose sometimes, with the term "due process of law," so if the law says it's OK, seizure without court approval is what happens.

That's the current system, apparently, within the District of Columbia. It's wrong, without having to be justified to a judge. But, those assets, accumulated as the result of an alleged crime, need to be frozen until guilt or innocence is found, and returned automatically if innocence is found.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

It seems pretty astonishing to me that there are people in the US who call themselves "conservatives" and complain about government overreach and their right to the free enjoyment of their property when it comes to taxes but seem remarkably sanguine about a state of affairs in which the state can simply seize your property other than as physical evidence (as opposed to ask the courts to place restrictions on your use or disposal it).

I thought that was one of their objections to socialism -- the police turning up and confiscating stuff.

Or is it only their guns they're worried about, and their money not so much?

(I mean, imagine the IRS presenting Trump with a tax bill and saying "right, we're taking however many million it is out of your accounts that we say you cheated on over the years, and you can sue us to get it back" and what people would -- rightly -- make of it).

 

[Romana]

It seems pretty astonishing to me that there are people in the US who call themselves "conservatives" and complain about government overreach and their right to the free enjoyment of their property when it comes to taxes but seem remarkably sanguine about a state of affairs in which the state can simply seize your property other than as physical evidence (as opposed to ask the courts to place restrictions on your use or disposal it).

I thought that was one of their objections to socialism -- the police turning up and confiscating stuff.

Or is it only their guns they're worried about, and their money not so much?

(I mean, imagine the IRS presenting Trump with a tax bill and saying "right, we're taking however many million it is out of your accounts that we say you cheated on over the years, and you can sue us to get it back" and what people would -- rightly -- make of it).

Simple: they don't think it's ever going to happen to them. Even the biggest crooks going. And so far, it pretty much hasn't. It's like any other issue; if it doesn't touch their life, they couldn't care less.

 

[Khamon]

(I mean, imagine the IRS presenting Trump with a tax bill and saying "right, we're taking however many million it is out of your accounts that we say you cheated on over the years, and you can sue us to get it back" and what people would -- rightly -- make of it).

This is exactly what happens. His experience would be no different than any other American's that have allegedly owed money to the IRS. The burden of proof is on the tax payer and the government will seize or garnish as they please.

 

[WolfEyes]

I'd have thought that Conservatives in particular would be worried that law enforcement can get away with this.

They're the ones that put such things into place so obviously they wanted them because it puts more money in their pockets. That 90k isn't going to be donated to charity after the verdict has been delivered. It all started with RICO. Something that should never have existed.

 

[WolfEyes]

Yes, but that should happen after he's been convicted of something, I think, not before.

In the UK, a judge would have issued an order freezing the money in his bank account, or his other assets, but the government couldn't just seize it.

It should, I think, remain his property (even though he can't use it) until he's been convicted of something and a court then confiscates it and disposes of it in whatever way.

I agree up to a point. Only the 90k should have been frozen. Any other such as direct deposits from employment income or other such not directly related to the crime(s) should be left alone. Punish the individual, not the wives and children of those individuals (unless they participated, of course, looking at the assTrumpet family). We're on the same page on everything else.