The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Then let justice be part of the "fake" concern. If the case has merit - I am OK with imprisoning people on the basis of real crimes prosecuted because of fake concerns.

If the general, underlying political animus is corrupt, as I believe it is, then “justice” is not really a part of it.

These are “trumped-up charges” and represent a corruption within the establishment.

To say “I am OK” with all of this, without showing un understanding of the immense ramification that will result from this corruption, indicates a “defective outlook” on your part. You should not be OK with corruption and the politicization of the justice system. You should see what is going on and oppose it.

Yet you gloss over all the most important elements. Why?

[Skepdick]

If the general, underlying political animus is corrupt, as I believe it is, then “justice” is not really a part of it.

I don't understand your reasoning. A corrupt system can still deliver justice. As in prosecute people who break the law.

It doesn't matter whether it's the intention; or the purpose or whatever other mnemonic you have at play.

Laws are laws and if you break laws and you get convicted for doing it - sucks to be you.

These are “trumped-up charges” and represent a corruption within the establishment.

So ths "corruption within the establishment" is not a trumped up charge on your behalf?

You are saying that the establishment is corrupt, but you aren't.

OK. Who are we prosecuting for this corruption you are pointing at?

To say “I am OK” with all of this, without showing un understanding of the immense ramification that will result from this corruption, indicates a “defective outlook” on your part. You should not be OK with corruption and the politicization of the justice system. You should see what is going on and oppose it.

OK. My outlook is defective. Fix it.

Tell me what needs to change.

Yet you gloss over all the most important elements. Why?

The most important elements are the resulting fix/improvement in the overall system. The actionable change that leads to an overal improvement and benefit for all.

What is this fix you are selling?

[Alexis Jacobi]

But hey, you don't like it and you think something untoward is happening here.

I would rather put it that people with a strong Constitutional understanding point out why, quite precisely, these are extraordinarily dangerous precedents. The issues are Constitutional. And the ramifications are extraordinary.

The ramification to the First Amendment is what is ultimately at stake. What is happening now is an extension of numerous levels of attack on free expression.

The issue of bringing charges against lawyers is also extremely concerning. The chilling effect has been noted already.

What keeps you from seeing all of this?

[Skepdick]

But hey, you don't like it and you think something untoward is happening here.

I would rather put it that people with a strong Constitutional understanding point out why, quite precisely, these are extraordinarily dangerous precedents. The issues are Constitutional. And the ramifications are extraordinary.

The ramification to the First Amendment is what is ultimately at stake. What is happening now is an extension of numerous levels of attack on free expression.

The issue of bringing charges against lawyers is also extremely concerning. The chilling effect has been noted already.

What keeps you from seeing all of this?

Wow, such big scary words you are using. Such gravitas you are attempting to communicate.

OK. So these extraordinary dangerous constitutional precedents.
Grave ramifications. Attack on freedom!
Danger! DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!

Your moral panic has been acknowledged - now quit the screeching and propose something actionable.

How do we ammend the constitution to protect the constuition from further extraordinarily dangerous constitutional precedents?

Unless you put your proposed cahnges forth there's not much that can be done here in the way of asserting whether we are better off doing nothing; or doing what you think should be done.

[Alexis Jacobi]

OK. My outlook is defective. Fix it.

I do not think I could “fix” the reasons that you have the commitments you do. I do not know what they are. However, uncovering “animus” is I think a part of it. How can one confront “visceral hatred” that overrides a genuine concern for justice? It is irrational in itself. I have no idea how this could be confronted.

I could though recommend reading or listening to legal scholars and understanding their arguments.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your moral panic has been acknowledged - now quit the screeching and propose something actionable.

How do we amend the constitution to protect the constitution from further extraordinarily dangerous constitutional precedents?

In your case? Simply seeing what is going on. I ask that you take action and examine the political danger. That is the “action” I recommend.

We do not have to amend the Constitution. We have only to abide by its spirit and letter.

In the largest sense this is a Constitutional issue.

[Skepdick]

OK. My outlook is defective. Fix it.

I do not think I could “fix” the reasons that you have the commitments you do. I do not know what they are. However, uncovering “animus” is I think a part of it. How can one confront “visceral hatred” that overrides a genuine concern for justice? It is irrational in itself. I have no idea how this could be confronted.

I could though recommend reading or listening to legal scholars and understanding their arguments.

I don't have any commitments.

I am pointing out that you have no plan; or strategy for systemic improvement. Despite having done all the reading and all the listening.

In short, all that effort and you have no ideas. Let us know if that changes.

[Skepdick]

Your moral panic has been acknowledged - now quit the screeching and propose something actionable.

How do we amend the constitution to protect the constitution from further extraordinarily dangerous constitutional precedents?

In your case? Simply seeing what is going on. I ask that you take action and examine the political danger.

We do not have to amend the Constitution. We have only to abide by its spirit and letter.

In the largest sense this is a Constitutional issue.

What sort of action are you proposing?

So far your words contain no ideas - only moral panic.

[FlashDangerpants]

But hey, you don't like it and you think something untoward is happening here.

I would rather put it that people with a strong Constitutional understanding point out why, quite precisely, these are extraordinarily dangerous precedents. The issues are Constitutional. And the ramifications are extraordinary.

The ramification to the First Amendment is what is ultimately at stake. What is happening now is an extension of numerous levels of attack on free expression.

The issue of bringing charges against lawyers is also extremely concerning. The chilling effect has been noted already.

What keeps you from seeing all of this?

The issues aren't constitutional at all for pretty simple reasons. If any of the prosecuted parties can show that the first ammendment protects the relevant activities they will either secure a not guilty verdict or else win on appeal. But the first ammendment only protects speach that expresses points of view, it doesn't protect bank robbers who write a note expressingthe view that they should be given money or else the hostages get their heads blown off.

It is a crime to carry out a fraud, and the first ammendment does not impact that at all. The actions for which the defendants face prosecution in the Georgia RICO case are multiple counts of fraud and they won't get to claim them as protected speach because they are being prosecuted for what they did, not what they said.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am pointing out that you have no plan; or strategy for systemic improvement. Despite having done all the reading and all the listening.

Since the first order of business is “seeing”, and getting clear about what is going on, I am committed in that area. I don’t have other objectives presently.

A “plan” might involve communicating with people who operate from your position. To try to influence you to see with more depth.

That is the plan that seems important right now.

[Skepdick]

I am pointing out that you have no plan; or strategy for systemic improvement. Despite having done all the reading and all the listening.

Since the first order of business is “seeing”, and getting clear about what is going on, I am committed in that area. I don’t have other objectives presently.

A “plan” might involve communicating with people who operate from your position. To try to influence you to see with more depth.

That is the plan that seems important right now.

That's what I said. You have no ideas.

Seeing is seeing.
Seeing is not a plan.

idea noun a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The actions for which the defendants face prosecution in the Georgia RICO case are multiple counts of fraud and they won't get to claim them as protected speech because they are being prosecuted for what they did, not what they said.

RICO charges are, in the opinion of those I have read and listened to, a bogus legal strategy. Unprecedented in an election dispute, corrupt, reaching etc. There is not a great deal more that need be said.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Seeing is not a plan.

You are quite wrong I think. Seeing and understand are extremely important initial endeavors.

To overcome what corrupts clear (or honest) seeing is also demanding — and equally important.

[Skepdick]

Seeing is not a plan.

You are quite wrong I think. Seeing and understand are extremely important initial endeavors.

To overcome what corrupts clear (or honest) seeing is also demanding — and equally important.

You keep saying that. But I assign exactly zero import to lip service and general pontification which leads to nothing actionable.

It's just busywork.

[FlashDangerpants]

The actions for which the defendants face prosecution in the Georgia RICO case are multiple counts of fraud and they won't get to claim them as protected speech because they are being prosecuted for what they did, not what they said.

RICO charges are, in the opinion of those I have read and listened to, a bogus legal strategy. Unprecedented in an election dispute, corrupt, reaching etc. There is not a great deal more that need be said.

Attempting to use fraud to disenfranchise millions of voters and overthrow democracy is also an unprecedented act, so getting into unprecedented trouble for it is only to be expected.