Because she said “release the Kraken”? I think that’s a humongous stretch.
I’ve been reading up on this and from what I can tell, “the Kraken” seems to be Sidney Powell, an attorney. Suggesting that Ginni Thomas was looking at legal remedies determined by courts, not physically taking control of the Capitol building.
I am not sure that the overthrow or put down is subject to the by force qualifer.
I think the difficulty is how context dependent all of these communications are.
To my mind, it is not at all clear that g thomas committed a crime.
on the other hand, we did end up with a violent insurrection. she appears to have been involved with the series of events that lead to this. so it is not clear she did not commit a crime either.
No, it’s highly suggestive and not close to proof. I think it’s more likely than not that she supported the armed insurrection, and somewhat likely that there is evidence she did so.
We know a lot of people supported the armed insurrection because a lot of people took part in it. We know that she supported their cause, and was a little unhinged. I don’t think it’s even a small stretch that she was one of the supporters, and she may have interacted with the organizers.
And i don’t think Thomas should be in a position to block the investigations that might or might not uncover that evidence, if it exists.
Again, I think that’s an awfully big stretch with more than a little reasonable doubt.
Now the Congress Critters who were giving the planners maps of the Capitol and showing them around … that’s a lot more damning IMO. I’d rather see them fry than Ginni Thomas, personally.
ETA: At least, based on what we know now.
That much I agree with.
I’m not saying she should be tried now.
But following the evidence where it leads seems reasonable. And this needs to be done while acknowledging the real possibility that it could result in criminal charges.
I don’t think that, as a rule, this should be a public process. However, it should be public when evidence arises in which the public has a legitimate interest that is not outweighed by privacy interests, such as is the case for at least some of these texts.
We never know what a supreme court will rule. IANAL, so I don’t know how to read those commas. My NAL observation is that it’s not uncommon to list a number of things that are all included in some approved/banned action.
Reading the statute, I think the clear intent is to outlaw forceful overthrow, not changing the result of an election by discovering a batch of fake ballots.
I don’t think you know Ginni Thomas very well.
I’d be most concerned with a conspiracy charge.
Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement’s goal . Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement. An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one.
As I’m sure your mother told you, be careful who you hang out with.
This is true; I don’t. What evidence is there that she meant for the Capitol to be stormed? I could easily be missing something.
I don’t think Ms Powell herself was/is “the kraken;” I thought she was the first one to use the phrase “release the kraken” in regards to the Trump team’s case for election fraud collection of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
Is this really the standard that should be applied? The whole enterprise of overturning a free and fair election is in stark contrast to our democractic system. If there is no consequence for these actions do we really even have a democracy any more? I think people aren’t really taking this as seriously as they should.
It seems that she didn’t believe that’s what she was doing. It seems she believed she was trying to prevent that from happening.
That seems relevant when it comes to determining criminal intent.
Yes, there should be consequences. But, if you think ex post facto laws are just wrong, then any criminal consequences have to be based on the laws already in effect prior to the actions.
Unfortunately, “legal” and “just” are two different things.
The “correct” consequences should be that the voters look at the facts, overwhelmingly see that they support the “free and fair” claim, and refuse to vote for any politician who continues to claim otherwise.
This did not work for the QANON shaman, or any of the others prosecuted for the Jan. 6 attack. Believing in the righteousness of your cause does not make you immune.
Why do you think it will work for her?
They clearly had criminal intent to break into the Capitol building and get past security.
That’s pretty radically different than asking for evidence to be exposed that the election was fraudulent.
From the evidence presented so far, I can’t see that she’s broken any actual laws.
The people who broke into the Capitol very obviously broke laws. Not remotely comparable.
Twig, the point isn’t that we have evidence that she was criminally guilty. There is clearly not enough evidence to charge her with anything at this time.
The point is that she clearly sympathized with criminals, and she was talking with people who probably helped organize the criminal assault on the capital, and she might also be guilty. She might not. An investigation might find evidence that she did more than just sympathize.
Thomas voting to block that investigation, which might (emphasis on might) entangle his wife, is an appearance of impropriety.
That’s not the question. Is her belief that the election was stolen a defense for actions associated with Jan 6?
You have mentioned this a couple of times, so I am curious as to why.
As far as crimes go, the recent Mark Meadows texts are the only released info. It is plausible there is more to come, if an investigation is pursued, ala the Congressional committee. We both know a DA will look for a lot of evidence before indicting someone. So I agree she has not been formally charged.
Let’s see how things unfold.