Feds Bust Militia Plot to Kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Overthrow Government

[The Barbarian]

And yet the three justices.... He could throw everybody under the bus, but those justices persist.

It's not a good thing to have justices who don't like the Bill of Rights.

They survive this election, whether or not the president does, and they survive his at most four more years in office too.

Unless they do something scandalous or criminal. And since the republicans chose "if we can get away with it, it's O.K." as the new standard, I wouldn't be surprised if the democrats did the same thing. And the republicans would have only themselves to blame.

I again compare his personal history, all the things he's ever said about the matter, to the justices he's nominated and how an Antebellum president with the same policies on slavery would earn my vote and most likely your vote as well.

Given Trump's compulsive racism, he would have sided with the slavers. I do note that since Roe v. Wade, abortion rates have dropped to lower levels than before Roe v. Wade. To give you some idea how effective government compulsion works on this issue.

Why he hasn't earned your vote is anybody's guest.

Incompetence, criminal behavior, hypocrisy, lack of any moral compass, despises American troops as "suckers" and "losers" and refuses to speak up for them even when Putin puts a bounty on killing them, toady for dictators who hate America. Stuff like that.

 

[Idolater]

It's not a good thing to have justices who don't like the Bill of Rights.

Like the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, etc. Amendments? Which right are these justices contemptuous of?

Unless they do something scandalous or criminal.

Things that go without saying go without saying.

And since the republicans chose "if we can get away with it, it's O.K." as the new standard, I wouldn't be surprised if the democrats did the same thing. And the republicans would have only themselves to blame.

If "legal" and "Constitutional" are what you mean by "if we can get away with it, it's O.K.", then OK, even though it's an odd way to put it i m o.

Given Trump's compulsive racism, he would have sided with the slavers.

I still see no evidence of this accusation of yours. You've already granted that he's not guilty of infringing any rights of anybody on the basis of race. You accuse him of an invisible mindset, that never manifests itself objectively. And there are examples of choices and actions of his that positively conflict with the notion that he's secretly a racist, in his mind or otherwise.

I do note that since Roe v. Wade, abortion rates have dropped to lower levels than before Roe v. Wade. To give you some idea how effective government compulsion works on this issue.

Cite?

And do you think that slavery was more or less popular after it was outlawed?

Incompetence, criminal behavior, hypocrisy, lack of any moral compass, despises American troops as "suckers" and "losers" and refuses to speak up for them even when Putin puts a bounty on killing them, toady for dictators who hate America. Stuff like that.

Huh. I prefer his policy positions on the economy, foreign affairs, judge appointments and nominations, regulatory, but I have a handful of issues that really carry more weight, one of them being whether the embryo or fetus is a person.

I can't imagine that if you lived in Antebellum America that you'd be against abolition, and telling me that slavery actually won't decline just because we make it illegal. Maybe I'm wrong. Do you see how it doesn't matter if abortion reduces or not? It's wrong to permit indiscriminate abortion if the embryo and fetus is a person, just as it's wrong to permit slavery, because Blacks are persons.

 

[The Barbarian]

If "legal" and "Constitutional" are what you mean by "if we can get away with it, it's O.K.", then OK, even though it's an odd way to put it i m o.

Republicans rejected their own argument that a justice shouldn't be confirmed within a year of an election and played it both ways. But as you see, there's no law against adding more justices. And if Biden wins and the democrats do that, republicans have only themselves to blame.

I still see no evidence of this accusation of yours. You've already granted that he's not guilty of infringing any rights of anybody on the basis of race.

He's guilty of trying. He tried to have a Hispanic judge removed from his trial in which he was caught defrauding people in his "Trump University" scam, because "he's a Mexican" (he wasn't). He was furious when DNA testing showed that a group of young black men were innocent of an assault, and argued that they should be kept in prison anyway.

He's also guilty of trying to keep black tenants out of his apartments, and had to sign a consent decree to stop doing it.

You accuse him of an invisible mindset, that never manifests itself objectively.

See above. There's more. Would you like to see more?

I do note that since Roe v. Wade, abortion rates have dropped to lower levels than before Roe v. Wade. To give you some idea how effective government compulsion works on this issue.

Cite?


Lower now, than before Roe v Wade.

And do you think that slavery was more or less popular after it was outlawed?

So your argument is that because some things can be most effectively discouraged by outlawing them, everything can be effectively discouraged that way? I'd be willing to listen to your reasoning. What do you have to counter the evidence?

 

[ok doser]

Like the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, etc. Amendments? Which right are these justices contemptuous of?
Things that go without saying go without saying.
If "legal" and "Constitutional" are what you mean by "if we can get away with it, it's O.K.", then OK, even though it's an odd way to put it i m o.
I still see no evidence of this accusation of yours. You've already granted that he's not guilty of infringing any rights of anybody on the basis of race. You accuse him of an invisible mindset, that never manifests itself objectively. And there are examples of choices and actions of his that positively conflict with the notion that he's secretly a racist, in his mind or otherwise.
Cite?

And do you think that slavery was more or less popular after it was outlawed?
Huh. I prefer his policy positions on the economy, foreign affairs, judge appointments and nominations, regulatory, but I have a handful of issues that really carry more weight, one of them being whether the embryo or fetus is a person.

I can't imagine that if you lived in Antebellum America that you'd be against abolition, and telling me that slavery actually won't decline just because we make it illegal. Maybe I'm wrong. Do you see how it doesn't matter if abortion reduces or not? It's wrong to permit indiscriminate abortion if the embryo and fetus is a person, just as it's wrong to permit slavery, because Blacks are persons.

barbie is going to grow more and more frantic in the next couple days

just warning you

 

[ok doser]

Like the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, etc. Amendments? Which right are these justices contemptuous of?
Things that go without saying go without saying.
If "legal" and "Constitutional" are what you mean by "if we can get away with it, it's O.K.", then OK, even though it's an odd way to put it i m o.
I still see no evidence of this accusation of yours. You've already granted that he's not guilty of infringing any rights of anybody on the basis of race. You accuse him of an invisible mindset, that never manifests itself objectively. And there are examples of choices and actions of his that positively conflict with the notion that he's secretly a racist, in his mind or otherwise.
Cite?

And do you think that slavery was more or less popular after it was outlawed?
Huh. I prefer his policy positions on the economy, foreign affairs, judge appointments and nominations, regulatory, but I have a handful of issues that really carry more weight, one of them being whether the embryo or fetus is a person.

I can't imagine that if you lived in Antebellum America that you'd be against abolition, and telling me that slavery actually won't decline just because we make it illegal. Maybe I'm wrong. Do you see how it doesn't matter if abortion reduces or not? It's wrong to permit indiscriminate abortion if the embryo and fetus is a person, just as it's wrong to permit slavery, because Blacks are persons.

btw https://theologyonline.com/forum/po...s-are-getting-desperate?p=2774935#post2774935

 

[The Barbarian]

Trump commanded "Liberate Michigan!" And his people responded.

 

[ok doser]

Family re-union at the barbie barbie-Q? :chuckle:

Family photo for the barbie Christmas card? :chuckle:

 

[ok doser]

...

 

[annabenedetti]

Lower now, than before Roe v Wade.

It was a revelation finding that out, which I did only recently.

 

[Idolater]

Republicans rejected their own argument that a justice shouldn't be confirmed within a year of an election and played it both ways. But as you see, there's no law against adding more justices. And if Biden wins and the democrats do that, republicans have only themselves to blame.

Meh. Republicans held the Senate majority both times. They could have just not confirmed any Democrat nominee ever. And if the Democrats win the presidency and Senate, and they do opt to expand the Court, then that's just moving the goalposts and anyone who thinks it's analogical to or justified by Coney's confirmation is lying or deluded.

He's guilty of trying. He tried to have a Hispanic judge removed from his trial in which he was caught defrauding people in his "Trump University" scam, because "he's a Mexican" (he wasn't).

His parents were Mexican, from Mexico, it's the same as two parents immigrating from Ireland, and then calling their kids who are born here Irish, get a grip.

He was furious when DNA testing showed that a group of young black men were innocent of an assault, and argued that they should be kept in prison anyway.

I'm unfamiliar. Sounds like he thought the men were a danger to innocent people.

He's also guilty of trying to keep black tenants out of his apartments, and had to sign a consent decree to stop doing it.



See above. There's more. Would you like to see more?

Yes cite the above, and you can show me as much as you want.

... since Roe v. Wade, abortion rates have dropped to lower levels than before Roe v. Wade. To give you some idea how effective government compulsion works on this issue.

Roe made it legal nationwide, abortion was legal in 20 of 50 states before then, four of which permitted indiscriminate abortion.

Problem is that you haven't provided and I can't find any, data from before 1970, and abortion's been around since antiquity, so the more interesting information would be abortion rate while it was illegal, compared to when it was legal. That would answer the question, how does the incidence of abortion relate to it being legally permitted versus outlawed.

I still think that like slavery, outlawing abortion significantly reduces its incidence.

So your argument is that because some things can be most effectively discouraged by outlawing them, everything can be effectively discouraged that way? I'd be willing to listen to your reasoning. What do you have to counter the evidence?

My argument is that if the embryo and fetus is a person, that it's just immoral to permit indiscriminate abortion. Nothing to do with discouraging it at all. That's a consequentialist argument, people who take rights seriously don't seriously consider consequentalist arguments when it comes to whether or not a right should be restricted or protected. Like the right against being killed without justification.

 

[ok doser]

Meh. Republicans held the Senate majority both times. They could have just not confirmed any Democrat nominee ever. And if the Democrats win the presidency and Senate, and they do opt to expand the Court, then that's just moving the goalposts and anyone who thinks it's analogical to or justified by Coney's confirmation is lying or deluded.
His parents were Mexican, from Mexico, it's the same as two parents immigrating from Ireland, and then calling their kids who are born here Irish, get a grip.
I'm unfamiliar. Sounds like he thought the men were a danger to innocent people.
Yes cite the above, and you can show me as much as you want.
Roe made it legal nationwide, abortion was legal in 20 of 50 states before then, four of which permitted indiscriminate abortion.

Problem is that you haven't provided and I can't find any, data from before 1970, and abortion's been around since antiquity, so the more interesting information would be abortion rate while it was illegal, compared to when it was legal. That would answer the question, how does the incidence of abortion relate to it being legally permitted versus outlawed.

I still think that like slavery, outlawing abortion significantly reduces its incidence.
My argument is that if the embryo and fetus is a person, that it's just immoral to permit indiscriminate abortion. Nothing to do with discouraging it at all. That's a consequentialist argument, people who take rights seriously don't seriously consider consequentalist arguments when it comes to whether or not a right should be restricted or protected. Like the right against being killed without justification.

I wonder if barbie would approve of overturning Roe v Wade

I wonder if you could get him to answer that question with a simple yes or no

 

[The Barbarian]

Republicans rejected their own argument that a justice shouldn't be confirmed within a year of an election and played it both ways. But as you see, there's no law against adding more justices. And if Biden wins and the democrats do that, republicans have only themselves to blame.

Meh.

Yep. They might not like it, but they changed the rules, so they have only themselves to blame.

Republicans held the Senate majority both times. They could have just not confirmed any Democrat nominee ever.

Yep. But that isn't the way it usually goes, either.

And if the Democrats win the presidency and Senate, and they do opt to expand the Court, then that's just moving the goalposts

Just as McConnell did when he first said 'no hearings for justices within a year of the election", and then moved the goal posts to say just the opposite. And anyone who denies it is lying or deluded.

He went from "some things are just not done" to "if we can get away with it, it's O.K." If democrats adopt the same ethics republicans can only blame themselves.

(Trump falsely claims a judge is "Mexican")

His parents were Mexican, from Mexico,

But he's an American. He was born here. Trump assumes that "Mexican" is a race, and being a racist, didn't want the judge in his trial. We all get that. Trump just doesn't get it.

He was furious when DNA testing showed that a group of young black men were innocent of an assault, and argued that they should be kept in prison anyway.

I'm unfamiliar. Sounds like he thought the men were a danger to innocent people.

Pretty much his argument "O.K., so they were innocent, but lock them up anyway, they are dangerous." And this man who treats the Bill of Rights like bathroom tissue, is now president of the United States.

Problem is that you haven't provided and I can't find any, data from before 1970,

Your problem is that abortion rates are lower now than before Row vs.Wade. And you seem to think that's a bad thing.

You do realize that overturning Roe vs. Wade would only permit each state to decide, right?

I still think that like slavery, outlawing abortion significantly reduces its incidence.

It worked for slavery. However legalizing abortion didn't seem to work the same way. Abortion rates are now lower than before Row vs. Wade. Maybe there's a difference you haven't accounted for. Hint: preventing pregnancy is way better than abortion, and Planned Parenthood opened a lot of clinics offering birth control. Fewer women are unintentionally getting pregnant.

 

[The Barbarian]

O.K., maybe we need to be looking more closely at white supremacists infltrating law enforcement:

On Thursday, shockwaves rippled throughout the U.S. after 13 men were arrested for conspiring to kidnap or kill Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, along with additional plots to blow up a bridge near her home to delay law enforcement response and other plots to kill police officers in the hope that Black Lives Matter supporters would be blamed, thus sparking a new civil war.

As additional details come to light, the picture of what these men were plotting has become even more frightening. Kidnapping plot aside, perhaps the most disturbing element is just how cozy they are with law enforcement—including Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf.

When Fox 17 reporter Aaron Parseghian caught up with Leaf to get his thoughts on the men facing charges, specifically whether he regrets appearing on stage with these men at a May 16 rally in opposition to the lockdown orders issued by Gov. Whitmer—orders Leaf said he would not enforce—Leaf gave a downright chilling response. Not only did Leaf say he had no regrets, he said these men were within their rights to conduct a citizen’s arrest of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...ithin-their-rights-to-arrest-Governor-Whitmer

 

[ok doser]

You do realize that overturning Roe vs. Wade would only permit each state to decide, right?

Nice try troll.

If Roe v Wade is overturned based on a recognition of the unborn child as a human being with the same fully vested rights as any citizen, all states will have to comply.

 

[annabenedetti]

Federal Grand Jury Returns A Superseding Indictment Adding New Charges In The Conspiracy To Kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer​

Three Defendants Charged with Conspiracy to Use a Weapon of Mass Destruction

Two Defendants Charged with Federal Firearms Violations



The defendants engaged in domestic terrorism, as defined at Title 18, United States Code, Section 2331(5). That is, they engaged in activities

within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, that involved acts dangerous to human life that were a violation of the criminal laws of the

United States or of any State; and which were intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by

intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

 

[ok doser]

Federal Grand Jury Returns A Superseding Indictment Adding New Charges In The Conspiracy To Kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer​

Three Defendants Charged with Conspiracy to Use a Weapon of Mass Destruction

Two Defendants Charged with Federal Firearms Violations



The defendants engaged in domestic terrorism, as defined at Title 18, United States Code, Section 2331(5). That is, they engaged in activities
within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, that involved acts dangerous to human life that were a violation of the criminal laws of the
United States or of any State; and which were intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

As far as I have been able to determine, the WMD charges stem specifically from their attempts to manufacture and plans to use an explosive device that would throw shrapnel, effectively a homemade equivalent of a claymore mine.

@annabenedetti - do you accept this definition of "WMD"?

 

[annabenedetti]

As far as I have been able to determine, the WMD charges stem specifically from their attempts to manufacture and plans to use an explosive device that would throw shrapnel, effectively a homemade equivalent of a claymore mine.

@annabenedetti - do you accept this definition of "WMD"?

It may have more to do with the 4 lbs. of explosives (C-4?) bought off the undercover agent to blow up the bridge. Or maybe their plan B to burn down the Capitol building with everyone in it, because their goal was to execute every legislator. I don't know if the term refers to shrapnel.

 

[Jefferson]

HUGE BLOW TO FAKE NEWS AND FBI: Zero Guilty Verdicts in Case of Alleged Plot to Kidnap Leftist Governor Whitmer – Not Guilty Verdict for 2, Hung Jury on 2 Including Ring Leader!​

 

[User Name]

In a Grand Rapids courtroom, during 13 days of testimony, prosecutors offered evidence from undercover agents, a crucial informant and two men who pleaded guilty to the plot. Jurors also read and heard secretly recorded conversations, violent social media posts and chat messages.

Ty Garbin, who pleaded guilty and is serving a six-year prison sentence, said the plan was to get Whitmer and cause enough chaos to trigger a civil war before the election, keeping Joe Biden from winning the presidency.

Garbin and Kaleb Franks, who also pleaded guilty and testified for the government, were among the six who were arrested in October 2020 amid talk of raising $4,000 for an explosive to blow up a bridge and stymie any police response to a kidnapping, according to trial testimony.

Prosecutors said the group was steeped in anti-government extremism and furious over Whitmer’s pandemic restrictions. There was evidence of a crudely built “shoot house” to practice going in and out of her vacation home, and a night ride by Croft, Fox and covert operatives to check the property.

Whitmer kidnap plot: 2 men acquitted, hung jury for 2 more

Jurors have acquitted two defendants of all charges in a plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer but couldn't agree on a verdict for two others.

apnews.com

 

[ok doser]

BBC's reporting:

FBI's Michigan governor kidnap plot case collapses - BBC News

Jurors acquit two of the defendants and fail to reach a verdict on two others.

www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Compare to NPR

2 men are acquitted in a plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Whitmer; hung jury on 2 more

Two of four men were acquitted Friday in a conspiracy to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in 2020, motivated by fury at the Democrat's tough COVID-19 restrictions early in the pandemic.

www.npr.org