The Plot to Nab Northam

Source: Bacon’s Rebellion.

“Self-styled ‘militia’ members based in Michigan accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer also considered nabbing Ralph Northam, Virginia’s governor, according to court testimony Tuesday.”

I suspect Virginia would never have become a blip on the Michigan crazies’ radar, except for the national attention our gun control debates received on Lobby Day back in January.

17 thoughts on “The Plot to Nab Northam

  1. #LIBERATE got the gangs excited. True, VA gun control efforts was part of it.

    Calls for insurrection are still treasonous behavior by a sitting president. It matters not if it is about guns, masks or DST. Rule of Law applies to the regime as well as other levels of government.

    Encouraging gangs with #LIBERATE and “Stand by…” is not the Rule of Law or any part of law and order, for that matter. It is pure pandering to the looney gangs for political purposes.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “Encouraging gangs with #LIBERATE and ‘Stand by…’ is not the Rule of Law or any part of law and order, for that matter.”

      Under the Rule of Law, who is responsible for a crime, the person who “encourages” it, or the person who commits it?

      I don’t see how the President is involved in this in any way.

      Like

      1. If Obama had put out a call to the New Black Panthers near election time, you might have thought differently.

        A President’s words used to mean something. Of course with this president, we have been assured by his supporters and the right wing media that his words are a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

        Of course that is pure hokum as evidenced by the mask politicizing, “stand by…” t-shirts, various “hoaxes”, POW’s labeled as losers for getting caught, etc.

        If you stand on a street corner and get a mob enraged enough to lynch or kill, you are responsible also.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. There are laws in many jurisdictions whereby encouraging a crime is a crime itself. Generally it is referred to as “incitement.” It is also a crime defined in the U.S. Code.

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373

        If criminal acts followed in response to “#LIBERATE Michigan” then a case against Trump for incitement would be a real possibility under the law. IMHO. Given his bully pulpit he has a moral and I would say a legal obligation to avoid ANY and ALL rhetoric that might incite violence. He obviously is not careful in what he says. Not in the least.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. RE: “A President’s words used to mean something.”

        They still do, but I’m glad you want to apply a Rule of Law standard. It is easy to connect a president’s words to the actions of a citizen philosophically, but establishing the connection for legal purposes is difficult, especially when the presumption of innocence must be overcome.

        We’re not talking about a court case here, but meeting the legal standard of proof for accusing the president of causing the actions of the militia suspects is a reasonable minimum requirement. I don’t see any way to meet that standard.

        Like

        1. You are most likely correct that convicting Trump of incitement would be very difficult no matter what he had said in general rather than giving specific orders. With that said, the standard for a President should not be what he can get away with, but what might reasonably be expected to lead to harm. Rhetoric such as “#LIBERATE Michigan” does not meet that higher standard.

          Trump’s rhetoric brings to mind the musings of Henry II with regard to Thomas Becket . . . “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” He did not order anybody to do anything, but four of his followers immediately travelled to Canterbury and murdered that priest.

          Trump’s demented musings are similar and just as dangerous . . . ““DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, THE BIGGEST OF ALL POLITICAL SCANDALS (IN HISTORY)!!! BIDEN, OBAMA AND CROOKED HILLARY LED THIS TREASONOUS PLOT!!! BIDEN SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO RUN – GOT CAUGHT!!!” “

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “With that said, the standard for a President should not be what he can get away with, but what might reasonably be expected to lead to harm.”

          That sounds like changing the rules because you don’t like the game to me. I like the game just fine as it is.

          “#LIBERATE Michigan” is sufficiently open to interpretation that it cannot be rationally connected to the alleged kidnapping plot.

          Even if the hashtag were “#Kidnap Wilmer&Northam,” I would expect to see some proof that the kidnap plotters had seen the hashtag, interpreted it in exactly the way the president intended it, and wouldn’t have plotted the kidnap without it.

          Like

        3. I agreed with you that Trump is safe legally. The point of the higher standard which you find objectionable is public safety.

          Your position is that it is Okay for the President to use rhetoric that might reasonably be expected to cause harm. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but the callowness of it speaks for itself.

          Here is one example of Trump’s rhetoric that fails the standard I proposed that a decent President would follow. He repeatedly refers to working journalists as “enemies of the people.” That is inflammatory and dangerous. He may not go to jail when, say, someone shoots up a newspaper office or a mob at a rally attacks a reporter, but he carries moral responsibility for creating an atmosphere where that kind of crime is more likely to happen.

          Liked by 1 person

        4. RE: “The point of the higher standard which you find objectionable is public safety.”

          I’m not sympathetic to the “higher standard” concept. Too often, as here, it is used to justify otherwise immoral and irresponsible accusations. In general, holding others to a “higher standard” exempts the accuser from having to meet any standard at all.

          Like

          1. I will ignore your uncivil accusation of my immorality and respond politely. Too bad there is not a moderator to step in when people make ad hominem attacks.

            It is legal for Trump to frequently accuse journalists of being “enemies of the people.” He meets the only standard you think is appropriate – he cannot be convicted of a crime for doing that. I think he should have a higher standard – he should not put people in danger. So, he has violated that higher standard and I accuse him of endangering the safety of journalists by using such language. So now . . .

            1. How is my accusation immoral?
            2. How is my accusation irresponsible?
            3. What standard have I exempted myself from by making this accusation?

            What is laughable to me is that Trump’s use of the “enemies of the people” rhetoric is both immoral and irresponsible because based on falsehoods he has put people in danger. And, obviously he is exempting himself from the standards of decency and responsibility that all President’s before him have followed.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “How is my accusation immoral?”

            It is immoral to accuse others of things they haven’t done.

            RE: “How is my accusation irresponsible?”

            It is irresponsible to accuse others of things they haven’t done.

            RE: “What standard have I exempted myself from by making this accusation?”

            You have exempted yourself from the standard of telling the truth. Your accusation, as given, is counterfactual.

            Like

          3. Is that your final answer? Are you sure you don’t need a little time to actually think?

            What did I accuse Trump of that he didn’t do?
            What Lie did I put forth?

            If you do not have an answer, you owe me an apology.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “What did I accuse Trump of that he didn’t do?”

            That wasn’t the question. The question was, “How is my accusation immoral?”

            RE: “What Lie did I put forth?”

            I didn’t say you lied. I said you exempted yourself from the standard of telling the truth.

            Notice that I said, “Your accusation, as given, is counterfactual.”

            Maybe it is nothing more than an opinion, but the point is the accusation that Trump has “endangered the safety of journalists” is not a proven fact, and you certainly haven’t proved it, or even substantiated it in any way. As a result, the accusation is open to being challenged as immoral and irresponsible.

            The accusation would be both immoral and irresponsible if you knew it to be false when you made it, or if you made the accusation without knowing it to be true, or if you asserted it to be factual when it is actually counterfactual.

            Like

          5. It boils down to this.
            I think it is dangerous for the President to repeatedly call journalists “enemies of the people” because it could lead to some people doing them harm.

            My opinion is not something crazy. It is common sense. It is obvious. And journalists have been threatened and harassed and shot. But, you say, it cannot be proven that such harm came from Trump’s rhetoric and therefore I am a liar, immoral and irresponsible.

            No, Mr. Roberts, I am not. I live in the real world where millions of people hang on Trump’s every word and his words OFTEN invite tragedy.

            You still owe me an apology and your most recent word salad of nonsense does not provide it.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. “I didn’t say you lied. I said you exempted yourself from the standard of telling the truth.”

            That sounds like exactly what we have for a president. He doesn’t lie if he exempts himself from the standard of telling the truth. In his mind,naturally.

            Finally, I understand.

            Of course no matter what “standard” Trump exempts himself from, he is still a liar.

            He could exempt himself from being obese, but that does not make him thin. He is still fat.

            So in this case, encouraging, supporting really, insurrection whether by financial and arms support or just saying that as president he want the folks to #LIBERATE the states he didn’t like. Of course since the Michigan case was a matter of heavily armed paramilitary gangs occupying the statehouse It is a dangerous situation.

            People who are in a position to create,execute and uphold law are held to a higher standard. And should be. They are the determinants for how the rest of us should behave. And they do so because we chose them. In other words, if those officials are crooked, then is there any reason for us to follow their laws?

            Liked by 2 people

          7. RE: “I think it is dangerous for the President to repeatedly call journalists ‘enemies of the people’ because it could lead to some people doing them harm.”

            So, your argument is: Because the President COULD cause harm, it is reasonable to say the President DOES cause harm.

            Your argument is based on lowering the standard of proof for making accusations against the President. Because it is Trump, we needn’t try as hard to be accurate in what we say about him. Because it is Trump, COULD and DOES mean the same thing.

            Same for the ad hominem you accuse me of. Because my statement COULD have been a personal attack; that means it WAS a personal attack.

            RE: “But, you say, it cannot be proven that such harm came from Trump’s rhetoric and therefore I am a liar, immoral and irresponsible.”

            Nope. I said it wasn’t proven, and for that reason the accusation is dubious.

            Like

          8. Your “arguments” are simply laughable.

            I did not say that because the President’s rhetoric COULD cause harm means that it DOES cause harm. I said what I said – that it is dangerous rhetoric. Laying a minefield is dangerous because it COULD cause harm. That is not saying that it DOES cause harm. But if someone steps into it and on to a mine then the person laying the mine is culpable.

            With that said, although the President’s ugly rhetoric may not lead directly to the deaths of journalists, the very act of spewing such hateful nonsense is in itself harmful to this country. Anyone who cannot agree with that simple fact is a damn fool. IMHO, of course.

            Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s