MSNBC, FCC & The Mandatory Peaceful Transfer Of Power Via A Legal Election

[Silhouette]

18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots
18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots

(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—
(1)
to incite a riot; or

(2)
to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or

(3)
to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or

(4)
to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;
and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— [1]
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

*******
18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions
18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions
(a)
As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.
(b)
As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

*******
Bear in mind that I believe there are serious and compelling reasons to impeach Donald Trump. However...

MSNBC may be guilty of violating these two federal codes by urging the unruly protest of a lawfully-elected president. The election of the president must be in our country assumed innocent until proven guilty. The avenue for removing Donald Trump from office is not using a major media outlet to urge large crowds who it admits are "disturbed, upset, angry"; especially when that outlet knows these crowds they encourage have used violence in assembly before. The avenue is impeachment and that outlined process. Period.

The FCC is under the direct command of POTUS where applicable laws limit MSNBC's ability to instigate or encourage large rowdy "angry, disturbed, upset" crowds to gather with the intent to harass public officials because of a duly-elected president and the peaceful transfer of power ordained by the voters' election.

The part in bold above is key. I suggest that appropriate law-enforcement watch newsreels from various shows on MSNBC, particularly the evening schedule..to see if the line has been crossed. And deal with MSNBC accordingly. A certain host on MSNBC has actively encouraged people known to her to be in a riotous and disturbed state of mind, to convene upon elected officials to cause turmoil over a duly-elected president. In my humble opinion, this person is guilty of violating the two federal codes above; as is her network who provides the venue knowing she is doing this. I think this "news" outlet should get a stern talking to. They were up to similar things in Missouri, nudging and applauding riots there.

MSNBC is in a unique position as essential guardian of the flock they're catering to in their obvious political leanings. People respond to figureheads they identify with in media. When they are essentially commanded by them to "get active" (from a news outlet?) by one of those media figureheads who has just acknowledged that their flock is "disturbed, angry" and in a riotous mood, we can expect that flock to riot. The demonstrations in DC prove up that that flock who responds to MSNBC's political slant, have "heard the call". The violence was a direct result of their organizing under an "angry & disturbed" mood.

At the very least, MSNBC is walking the thinnest of thin lines. In my opinion they have already crossed it. And the FCC should be involved in reining in a media outlet who apparently seems to be hellbent on instigating dangerous circumvention of due process, riot laws and the lawful election of President Trump.

And remember, I don't think Trump should be president for a host of reasons. But enough is enough. I love America and I don't want to see her torn to shreds by the chants of a far left cult pissed off that they have to respect the votes of other people.

I also vigorously opposed similar stunts when Fox News had Glenn Beck & Sarah Palin on inciting similar violent actions against democrats...just before Gabby Giffords was shot point blank in the head by a psycho rightwinger. This shit gets serious and it's seriously time to use the federal laws people put in place to protect the citizenry. Fox disappeared Glenn Beck and phased out Palin not long after they met with Obama's wrath. Wisely so. The FCC can really rain on your parade as it turns out...

 

[Silhouette]

Anti-GOP Uprising Grows as 'Indivisible Guide' to Resisting Trump Goes Viral

Anti-GOP Uprising Grows as 'Indivisible Guide' to Resisting Trump Goes Viral
Former congressional staffers are publicizing their newly released "Indivisible Guide," a manual for people, groups, and organizations who want to resist the incoming rightwing administration through grassroots action.

President-elect Donald Trump rose to power while losing the popular vote by a historic margin, and his lack of a mandate means a vocal and organized resistance can weaken Republican resolve and "[stiffen] Democratic spines," the guide states....MSNBC's Rachel Maddow covered the guide on her show Wednesday.

"This is not a panacea, nor is it intended to stand alone," the authors write. "We strongly urge you to marry the strategy in this guide with a broader commitment to creating a more just society, building local power, and addressing systemic injustice and racism."

"We wrote this guide because we believe that the coming years will see an unprecedented movement of Americans rising up across the country to protect our values, our neighbors, and ourselves," they write. "Our goal is to provide practical understanding of how your [MoCs] think, and how you can demonstrate to them the depth and power of the opposition to Donald Trump and Republican congressional overreach."

The "not limited to this guide" advice pitched to an "angry, disturbed" crowd who is protesting our democratic process is incitement to riot. De facto. And pitched by a network no less.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Sure.

 

[Pogo]

to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;
and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— [1]
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

*******
18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions
18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions
(a)
As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person

This could certainly apply to any TV or radio outlet --- or print media for that matter --- that advertises a "Black Friday" sale.

​

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Black Friday sales don't have promos that say "hey, if you're angry or disturbed the day after Thanksgiving, come down in a big angry disturbed crowd to the mall and cut up." Do they?

I'm sure there will be cries of innocence to this too, but I notice MSNBC running throughout their programming a commercial for a TV series or movie that addresses how people are killing the magic. Some promo about witches or wiccans or some such being under oppression. One clip features two goth type people nuzzling discussing how in their fight they'd make "pretty corpses". ie: fight to the death. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see the subliminal message. The only demographic the left would accuse of killing the magicians would be Christians (associated with republicans). And the message "fight them to the death". But hey, it's just a coincidental promo run during MSNBC's host nudging "angry disturbed" viewer-regulars of their shows....right?

 

[Pogo]

Oh by the way good job quoting the law but you failed to document what if anything the TV channel did.

 

[Shrimpbox]

What is inherent in all of this is that the rest of us are roadkill, invisible people, deplorables, irredeemable, worthless pieces of shit. Right back at ya Rachel.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh by the way good job quoting the law but you failed to document what if anything the TV channel did.

That's why I said authorities should review recent video feeds from MSNBC to see if a host there acknowledged the crowd she was instigating to gather & protest the proper democratic election of Trump.. were in an "angry" or "disturbed" mood when she did so. They can determine if MSNBC crossed the line.

Remember, I don't think Trump should be president. But crossing the line is crossing the line. You don't always get what you want in a democracy but you're not allowed to (in an acknowledged angry or disturbed mood) gather to protest democracy itself....which is what these MSNBC crowds are being inspired by them to do...if they say they know crowds are angry or disturbed when they do so. Arab Spring had similar beginnings..

 

[Pogo]

Oh by the way good job quoting the law but you failed to document what if anything the TV channel did.

That's why I said authorities should review recent video feeds from MSNBC to see if a host there acknowledged the crowd she was instigating to gather & protest the proper democratic election of Trump.. were in an "angry" or "disturbed" mood when she did so. They can determine if MSNBC crossed the line.

Remember, I don't think Trump should be president. But crossing the line is crossing the line. You don't always get what you want in a democracy but you're not allowed to (in an acknowledged angry or disturbed mood) gather to protest democracy itself....which is what these MSNBC crowds are being inspired by them to do...if they say they know crowds are angry or disturbed when they do so. Arab Spring had similar beginnings..

You're not making any sense.

You asked if a TV host "were" in an angry or disturbed mood? Or if some protestors somewhere "were"? Followed by totally different videos of a totally different event from a totally different channel?

I don't get it. Just answer the question directly --- WHAT did the TV channel do or say to incite a riot?

 

[Silhouette]

You're not making any sense.

You asked if a TV host "were" in an angry or disturbed mood? Or if some protestors somewhere "were"? Followed by totally different videos of a totally different event from a totally different channel?

I don't get it. Just answer the question directly --- WHAT did the TV channel do or say to incite a riot?

No, as you know, I asked whether or not the TV host knew her viewers en mass were in an angry or disturbed mood when she egged them on to gather in large crowds (in that mood) and protest the legitimate results of a democratic election.

The investigators would likely look into these three areas.

1. Did the host realize the people she was addressing on her media-aired show were angry or disturbed about the results of an election? (yes)

2. Did the host then, so realizing, urge those people to gather in crowds and instigate others to join with them (knowing they were) in said disturbed/angry mood? (yes)

3. Did the host then, so realizing and instigating the gathering of a large disturbed crowd, egg them on to protest (knowing they were) in said mood and numbers, the legitimate results of a democratic election?

Since the only hope this host has of slipping off the hook lies in #3, in changing the word "legitimate" to "illegitimate", there might be a chance of innocence? But in this country, allegations and the person they're leveled against are the burden of the accuser, not the accused. So unless this host has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the election was illegitimate, there's trouble afoot for MSNBC, her employers.

And my other point was that the FCC is directed by the POTUS. So this host and her network are in a pinch. I've heard this POTUS doesn't take prisoners.

In my opinion, Rachael Maddow has become radicalized in the cult she advocates for. It's just my opinion, but I don't think I'm alone in it. When said advocacy includes the urging of (known) angry crowds to descend to protest the results of a legitimate election just because Ms. Maddow does not like who rose to power in the country as a result, then her urgings for civil unrest are a direct affront to our democracy. Which is nothing less than what foreign terrorists are up to.

Her guilt or innocence would wash out in an investigation of course. And I urge that that investigation happen. The stark lesson of media outlets encouraging violence towards people who have legitimate and allowed disagreements with their network's political slant is still fresh in my memory from Gabby Giffords.

 

[Silhouette]

What is inherent in all of this is that the rest of us are roadkill, invisible people, deplorables, irredeemable, worthless pieces of shit. Right back at ya Rachel.

Well...for one seeming to say people should be tolerant, Ms. Maddow seems to be the least tolerant of opposing views on the LGBT cult. She'd have done great in Scientology. I wonder what her views would be, for instance, if a gay cake company refused to design a cake that said "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"...and was fined hundreds of thousands of dollars or thrown in jail for doing so?

 

[mdk]

The FCC isn't going to investigate Rachel Maddow, loon.

 

[Silhouette]

The FCC isn't going to investigate Rachel Maddow, loon.

No, that's not their job...idiot...their job is in enforcing the results of other agencies' investigations..MSNBC is responsible for what their hosts are doing over public airways.

 

[mdk]

The FCC isn't going to investigate Rachel Maddow, loon.

No, that's not their job...idiot...their job is in enforcing the results of other agencies' investigations..MSNBC is responsible for what their hosts are doing over public airways.

So whom do you want to investigate Rachel Maddow?

 

[Silhouette]

So whom do you want to investigate Rachel Maddow?

I'll leave that up to Trump's people. I'm sure they can figure it out.

Meanwhile, you know the limo on fire in the youtube on page #1? What if Gabby Giffords was sitting inside it when the punks lit it on fire? See what I mean? It's not acceptable for either side to use their media mouthpiece to instigate violence in individuals or crowds...

I have a hunch that Maddow who used to be drunk with her unlimited power-seat, has now had the rug ripped out from under that power seat. So she's resorting to instigating her little army to "follow the "Indivisible Guide" which has a statement that says "We strongly urge you to marry the strategy in this guide with a broader commitment to creating a more just society, building local power,"

In other words the guide Maddow is pushing people to follow, while seemingly benign, also at the same time urges "anything broader than benign to achieve the ends desired...to build power..." (paraphrased).

And when this is done with a crowd that Maddow acknowledges beforehand are out of their minds with anger, rage, frustration etc.....well....put 2 & 2 together. I think she's hoping her audience will at least...

 

[mdk]

So whom do you want to investigate Rachel Maddow?

I'll leave that up to Trump's people. I'm sure they can figure it out.

Meanwhile, you know the limo on fire in the youtube on page #1? What if Gabby Giffords was sitting inside it when the punks lit it on fire? See what I mean? It's not acceptable for either side to use their media mouthpiece to instigate violence in individuals or crowds...

Besides your imagination, where has Rachel Maddow encouraged people to act violently? I am sure you have video evidence to support this charge or are you going with the subliminal messages horseshit instead?

 

[BULLDOG]

You're not making any sense.

You asked if a TV host "were" in an angry or disturbed mood? Or if some protestors somewhere "were"? Followed by totally different videos of a totally different event from a totally different channel?

I don't get it. Just answer the question directly --- WHAT did the TV channel do or say to incite a riot?

No, as you know, I asked whether or not the TV host knew her viewers en mass were in an angry or disturbed mood when she egged them on to gather in large crowds (in that mood) and protest the legitimate results of a democratic election.

The investigators would likely look into these three areas.

1. Did the host realize the people she was addressing on her media-aired show were angry or disturbed about the results of an election? (yes)

2. Did the host then, so realizing, urge those people to gather in crowds and instigate others to join with them (knowing they were) in said disturbed/angry mood? (yes)

3. Did the host then, so realizing and instigating the gathering of a large disturbed crowd, egg them on to protest (knowing they were) in said mood and numbers, the legitimate results of a democratic election?

Since the only hope this host has of slipping off the hook lies in #3, in changing the word "legitimate" to "illegitimate", there might be a chance of innocence? But in this country, allegations and the person they're leveled against are the burden of the accuser, not the accused. So unless this host has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the election was illegitimate, there's trouble afoot for MSNBC, her employers.

And my other point was that the FCC is directed by the POTUS. So this host and her network are in a pinch. I've heard this POTUS doesn't take prisoners.

In my opinion, Rachael Maddow has become radicalized in the cult she advocates for. It's just my opinion, but I don't think I'm alone in it. When said advocacy includes the urging of (known) angry crowds to descend to protest the results of a legitimate election just because Ms. Maddow does not like who rose to power in the country as a result, then her urgings for civil unrest are a direct affront to our democracy. Which is nothing less than what foreign terrorists are up to.

Her guilt or innocence would wash out in an investigation of course. And I urge that that investigation happen. The stark lesson of media outlets encouraging violence towards people who have legitimate and allowed disagreements with their network's political slant is still fresh in my memory from Gabby Giffords.

You're just having a hard time understanding that the majority of the country is disgusted with our new president, and won't be satisfied until he is gone.

 

[Silhouette]

The evidence is in the video feed of her shows since the election's results. I've seen at least two of her shows, where I can't put my finger on the date, where she first talked about how disturbed & upset & even mentally impaired (from her description of their collective state of mine) her flock was about the election and then launched into urging them to organize to protest the legitimate election (until proven otherwise) using the "Indivisible Guide" as their instruction manual.

Again, the "Indivisible Guide" "strongly" urges its readers to step outside it's parameters of peaceful assembly to "build power". So, I'm not the authorities; but I urge them to look into the matter.

 

[Silhouette]

You're just having a hard time understanding that the majority of the country is disgusted with our new president, and won't be satisfied until he is gone.

Not at all. I'm equally or even more alarmed or disgusted with who Trump is as a person. I lived with his type of pathology for 50 years and suffered almost every day under its whip. So more than anyone else posting here probably, I urge that he be impeached for mental impairment. But that's not the point. The point is that you don't pour gasoline on a fire to try to extinguish it. Maddow needs to understand that the election was legitimate as any other, including Obama's 2008 nomination *ahem*... and that you cannot use large unruly crowds in the US to protest democracy itself.

Again, where's her/her army's outrage for the down-ballot defeats of dems? I guess if she started whipping them up about that, they'd realize why it was that Trump got the seat of power he has....THEIR OWN STUPID FAULT FOR PUSHING SOCIALLY INSANE AGENDAS. Regular people who don't live on the coast in California are shocked by those insane values...right, center and left of center. That's why Trump's in power. Those crowds should be protesting Maddow's ilk instead. That's why they have Trump as their legitimate president.. That actually is the raw, rock-bottom root of the truth.

You think the dems in the Upper Midwest, Midwest and Rust Belt want deranged boys using their daughter's showers and bathrooms???? Under threat of their school having funds withdrawn? Essentially sexual assault/imposition upon their little girls by force of law??? Get a FUCKING CLUE. Dems lost because dems lost. And dems lost because they allowed this canker sore called LGBT to grow festering upon their logo. And they forgot that not all democrats live in San Franfreakshow, California..where Maddow is from, not coincidentally.

A cult is a cult. And when it overreaches into violent protests of legitimate elections, that's when I want an investigation.. If these riotous crowds want to point the finger of blame for why Trump is in power, they need to get a really really big full length mirror to get a super-accurate view of "the enemy"..

 

[BULLDOG]

You're just having a hard time understanding that the majority of the country is disgusted with our new president, and won't be satisfied until he is gone.

Not at all. I'm equally or even more alarmed or disgusted with who Trump is as a person. I lived with his type of pathology for 50 years and suffered almost every day under its whip. So more than anyone else posting here probably, I urge that he be impeached for mental impairment. But that's not the point. The point is that you don't pour gasoline on a fire to try to extinguish it. Maddow needs to understand that the election was legitimate as any other, including Obama's 2008 nomination *ahem*... and that you cannot use large unruly crowds in the US to protest democracy itself.

Again, where's her/her army's outrage for the down-ballot defeats of dems? I guess if she started whipping them up about that, they'd realize why it was that Trump got the seat of power he has....THEIR OWN STUPID FAULT FOR PUSHING SOCIALLY INSANE AGENDAS. Regular people who don't live on the coast in California are shocked by those insane values...right, center and left of center. That's why Trump's in power. Those crowds should be protesting Maddow's ilk instead. That's why they have Trump as their legitimate president.. That actually is the raw, rock-bottom root of the truth.

You think the dems in the Upper Midwest, Midwest and Rust Belt want deranged boys using their daughter's showers and bathrooms???? Under threat of their school having funds withdrawn? Essentially sexual assault/imposition upon their little girls by force of law??? Get a FUCKING CLUE. Dems lost because dems lost. And dems lost because they allowed this canker sore called LGBT to grow festering upon their logo. And they forgot that not all democrats live in San Franfreakshow, California..where Maddow is from, not coincidentally.

A cult is a cult. And when it overreaches into violent protests of legitimate elections, that's when I want an investigation.. If these riotous crowds want to point the finger of blame for why Trump is in power, they need to get a really really big full length mirror...

I suppose all that that might be true if it was a legitimate election. The Russian influence through Wikileaks and their collusion with Trump, along with the continuous partisan FBI editorializing, which was against every precedent ever set
removed every speck of legitimacy from this president. Yes, he is the legal president, but he is not, and never will be the legitimate president.