The Eastman Memo, the coup memo

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Nothing more than two guys talking over a beer. IF Pence had tried, THAT would be actionable.
So to be clear you are saying that if I attempt to hire a hit man at your request that is not a step in furtherance? That seems to be dramatically at odds with all legal precedent. Can you show where you’re getting this idea from?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
So to be clear you are saying that if I attempt to hire a hit man at your request that is not a step in furtherance? That seems to be dramatically at odds with all legal precedent. Can you show where you’re getting this idea from?
If I had talked to you about maybe I should hire a hitman, thats not illegal. If I had actually tried to hire a hitman, that would. With the exchange of money. Talking or suggesting something is not illegal.

edit: maybe you can explain why after Trump suggested Pence should be hanged he wasnt arrested for attempted murder?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
If I had talked to you about maybe I should hire a hitman, thats not illegal. If I had actually tried to hire a hitman, that would. With the exchange of money. Talking or suggesting something is not illegal.

edit: maybe you can explain why after Trump suggested Pence should be hanged he wasnt arrested for attempted murder?
Ok so we agree if you requested someone to commit the murder that would be a crime?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Depends on the solicitation.

edit: And I know where youre going with this. Why havent charges been filed when Trump asked GA to find him 11k+votes? Why?
I think they will be soon. They have a current grand jury that’s assessing whether to file charges against Trump right now.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
To be clear you don’t think that advocating for the Vice President to throw out votes in order to overturn the results of a democratic election is ending democracy?

Wow. Just…wow.

Is this really surprising though? This is a guy who gives more credence to a propaganda film than actual facts and findings from an investigation. We aren’t exactly dealing with someone who is all there.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,004
19,444
136
Talk about low-effort trolling :rolleyes:
I sometimes think he's a troll, but I've been in too many right-wing comment threats and there are people that are so fucking horrible like he is. They think they're reasonable and they are so fucking biased and ignorant. It's all the same
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Is this really surprising though? This is a guy who gives more credence to a propaganda film than actual facts and findings from an investigation. We aren’t exactly dealing with someone who is all there.
It’s not that surprising in that the his sort of rationalization is what I expect conservatives to do if/when the coup really happens. They will seriously be like ‘what coup?’
 

gothuevos

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2010
1,858
1,624
136
I made the mistake at the end of 2020 of too blithely dismissing Trump’s chances of success because his lawsuits were so clownish. Turns out his real play is was to ignore the law entirely and it almost worked.

Now do you believe me when I say we are headed for a slaughter in 2022 and beyond?

Let this sink in for a second - the only reason that 2020 failed was because:

1). Mike freaking Pence decided AT THE LAST SECOND AFTER CONSULTING WITH OTHERS to follow the law.

2). A handful of Secretaries of State didn't throw out votes, the same SoS that are now getting Trump-backed challengers for their jobs.

How much more fucked can we get?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136

I certainly hope so. If you look at the federal crimes they are discussing, the statutes do appear to be applicable. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 371 "if two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added)."

According to DoJ, "defraud the United States" by precedent means this:

The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government." Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The "defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute." United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).


I can't see how this would not apply squarely here. There are also two other criminal statutes and both look applicable.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,535
7,660
136
Y'all are taking a lot of time and effort to explain conspiracy law to someone who wouldn't understand it even if you could explain it using cartoons.

Criminal Conspiracy is pretty easy to understand
  1. an agreement between at least two parties,
  2. the agreement is meant to achieve an illegal goal,
  3. all parties alleged to be involved have to have knowledge of the conspiracy and participate in the conspiracy in some way, and
  4. at least one person involved in the conspiracy has to make an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
I'd say ransacking the Capitol to stop the count/confirmation of Biden, and threatening Pence was clearly at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. And there were hundreds involved.

Shitbird is going to claim total dumbfuckery on the matter, vomit out his totally incorrect opinion, and if all else fails, BothSidesDoIt™.