We’re going to hear variations on this argument time and again. The defendants thought they had a duty to counter an illegal process, with illegal activities. It sounds kind of like civil disobedience. But civil disobedience is not a “King’s ‘X’” that allows you to break the law with impunity.Michigan Atty Gen. Dana Nessel (more): "They may have felt compelled to follow the call to action from a President they held fealty to. They may have even genuinely believed that this was their patriotic duty. But none of those reasons or feelings provide legal justification"
— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) July 18, 2023
Civil disobedience is a strategy of a mass movement to oppose unjust laws by accepting the consequences of violating such laws in order to establish the immorality and illegitimacy of such laws. You can’t use it to reverse an election in the basus that: “My guy shoulda won, and fuck all y’all!”
The country’s ability to elect people to public office is a political and legal process that can, if necessary, be overseen by the courts. It’s never supplanted by a handful of people, in a state or in the White House, who think they have a right to the electoral outcome of their preference.
It’s really pretty much that simple. What the defendants believed they could justifiably do is irrelevant. It’s what they did, that matters. I’ll go back to the example of my one criminal defendant one more time: he believed he wasn’t in possession of a firearm, since it wasn’t his gun. But the law said “possession,” not the much narrower “ownership.” His belief about his relationship to the gun was irrelevant.
Defendants may believe they were “doing the right thing.” But that’s not what the law says. And their beliefs in the purity of their hearts and the justness of their causes is not a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card.
Yes, Virginia, there are white collar crimes.
These folks don't understand that when one engages in civil disobedience, it is with the knowledge that you might suffer consequences. Or you might even court the consequences. But before you can determine if you must violate an unjust law, you must first scrupulously follow the law (at least from a Gandhian perspective).
ReplyDeleteAlso, too: dog woke me up, I couldn't get back to sleep, so at 3am I'm arguing with a guy who thinks that a) this can't be fraud because Michigan wasn't fooled by the fake certs (otherwise "they" are incompetent and wouldn't win at trial anyway); b) the fact there's no jury seated right now proves they have no case (when I pointed out the complaint dropped yesterday and the people haven't even been arraigned yet, I was told their right to speedy trial was being violated).
Hey, I don't tell you what to do with your free time, so don't judge...
Also, too: this guy was laughing at the notion these people intended to commit fraud to install a fake president. Like, why on earth would they plan hide in the Capitol, send signed certs purporting to conform with the law to the Senate and Archives? Because they were bored teenagers on a lark? All but 2 of the GOP slate, all obviously party operatives, clearly knew who the certified electors were.
ReplyDeleteI used your line about "intent" ain't what you see on TV. He noted he didn't have a TV. I suggested he read a book.