was 1/6 an insurrection and are we in the throes of a civil war?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/6 was the redneck reverse of a BLM protest. And their savior Trump hasn't even tried to help any of his minions who got nto trouble.

No, it was way more serious than that. Sure some of the people there were just standard meal team six afficianados but others went much further. They were specifically trying to stop the electoral count and overthrow the election. It was straight up an attempted coup.

So we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of gun owners left their firearms at home? Is that how you’re seeing this?

What you’re seeing is uninformed and incorrect.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

You’re evading the issue. Is your position that we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of GUN OWNERS left their FIREARMS at home?

The NPR article details pepper spray, stun guns and baseball bats which is very consistent with some of the left riots we’ve seen, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.

There were plenty who actually had guns there.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/23/capitol-riot-report-details-weapons-toted-by-28k-strong-trump-mob/

“Plenty”? Five firearms documented in the article, none at the Capitol, out of 28,000 people there that day. My guess is the guys and gals who were armed with firearms knew to stay out of the cap building because most responsible gun owners are exceedingly careful about where they take their firearms.

This has to be the first revolution in history where a bunch of gun owners left their guns at home.

You're right. This could be the first revolution in modern history where guns where left at home. It is what it is. Any other thoughts back on topic?

Most reasonable people in a nonpartisan context would say if the gun owners leave their firearms at home, it wasn’t an insurrection/revolution. It was a riot.

Be careful about the standards you set. E.g., protestors storming the senate during the confirmation hearings of a SCOTUS nominee.

bOtH sIDeS

(IOW not the same)

It’s not “both sides”. I’d be equally appalled at trespassing and interruption of government proceedings during the BK hearings being stretched into insurrection/revolution charges. I’d feel the same way about the attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland. But believe me that it wouldn’t take many changes to the indictments in the Jan 6 cases to be applied to the people trying to stop the BK confirmation hearings.

Except for that whole trying to overthrow the election part. It's kind of a big distinction.

Not if you expect equal justice under the law. You’re kinda proving the allegation that this is political.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to interrupt government proceedings to prevent an electoral count but it is okay to interrupt BK confirmation hearings.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to trespass and remain in the capitol building to stop and electoral count but it is legal to trespass and remain in the capital to prevent/protest BK hearings.

Again, this isn’t a defense of the J6 rioters. But your distinctions only matter if you bring politics into it.

This.

Not, not really "this", because the PP was factually incorrect about the various laws that do, and do not apply to these different circumstances.

+1 Just at its most basic level, the people at the hearings had been allowed into the Capitol and cleared by security. No one on January 6 had because the Capitol was closed to the public due to Covid.

I’d love to know which laws I’m wrong about. Prosecutorial discretion is a real thing. But political legitimacy of any government rests on the just treatment of the minority party. And that’s based on equal justice for all.

On the BK hearings, your comment is revisionist BS. There were at least 225 arrests at the BK senate confirmation hearings. I remember that very clearly. Some were arrested for blocking physical spaces and others for outbursts in the hearing room.

By elements of the crimes, the BK protestors could have been charged the same as about 75% of those charged for the J6 riots. But I think every single one paid a fine and moved on with their life. Again, prosecutorial discretion is real, but if either party truly wishes to govern in this country, then equal justice under the law has to mean something.

No, they couldn't Facts and laws matter. The BK people were prostesting and by your own admission, were arrested. The J6 people were literally staging a coup. It wasn't "riots" it was a freaking coup attempt. Hence the laws they are being charged under are related to disrupting a consitutional action, not just "a protest"

Facts and laws do matter. And you need to read the thread.

Roughly 1150 people have been arrested and charged for J6.

15 face insurrection/revolt charges (seditious conspiracy). A little over 1%.

Approx 295 have faced violence charges but not seditious conspiracy charges (assault, resisting arrest, violence in government building). About 25%.

The balance have faced disorderly conduct type charges, categorized as obstruction of an official proceeding, trespassing or remaining in a restricted government area, etc. This is about 75% of the people charged. When I say the BK protestors are in family with this 75% group, that’s what I mean. But they were given citations, paid fines and moved on with their lives.

Again, less than 2% of J6 rioters are facing insurrection/revolt/coup charges. So, no, I don’t accept that beyond the 15 people charged with seditious conspiracy that this was a coup attempt. It was a riot for the overwhelming majority of people there and DOJ’s charges reflect that reality. Otherwise, DOJ is letting over 1100 people off easy.

Sucks for them. They got duped by a clown and were unwitting but planned pawns in a coup attempt. That's some serious stuff. Seems to me you're just raising questions about the wrong set of people. Why are the pawns taking the fall?

Then again, all they have to do is cooperate in the investigation of the attempted coup and show remorse for unwittingly taking part in an attempted coup and they get that slap on the wrist you say they deserve.

+1

But people need to stop pretending these people were innocent dupes. They knew what they were there for. Whether or not they were involved in the planning, they wanted to overturn the election and get their people installed. That’s what they were there to do.

They showed up because they knew what the objective and intent was. It had been all over far right Twitter, on QAnon and MAGA message boards and facebook groups and everywhere else for weeks prior. Even if they weren't there to lead the charge, they were still there at a bare minimum to support it and pay witness to it.

The word I’ve highlighted in your post is super important here. If you’re right then they should have been charged with with seditious conspiracy. That’s the rub here. You want to label all of them as seditious traitors yet only 15 of them actually faced that charge or anything similar.

The narrative doesn’t jive with the actual government response. If you’re right then you should absolutely be livid at BIDEN’s DOJ for letting so many people off the hook.

Seditious Conspriacy is hard to prove. There would need to be smoking gun emails and texts. It is easier to get prosecutions for the cut and dried charges. That is what prosecutors always do and have done in these cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ broken post - the only rub is that hundreds of them are getting off with little more than "trespass" types of charges.

You can only charge what you can prove.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats and their surrogates spent six years attacking Trump. In fact, they were talking about impeachment six months before Trump was even elected.

Don't behave like that and expect nothing in return.

This!

Not really. Everyone knew Trump was a corrupt mobster who was laundering Russian money and thus was unfit for the presidency.

[Anonymous]

In fact, they were talking about impeachment six months before Trump was even elected.

Excuse us for correctly predicting that the guy would commit crimes in office, I guess?

[Anonymous]

In fact, they were talking about impeachment six months before Trump was even elected.

Excuse us for correctly predicting that the guy would commit crimes in office, I guess?

+ 1 million

His home state of NY wouldn't elect him because they knew him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/6 was the redneck reverse of a BLM protest. And their savior Trump hasn't even tried to help any of his minions who got nto trouble.

No, it was way more serious than that. Sure some of the people there were just standard meal team six afficianados but others went much further. They were specifically trying to stop the electoral count and overthrow the election. It was straight up an attempted coup.

So we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of gun owners left their firearms at home? Is that how you’re seeing this?

What you’re seeing is uninformed and incorrect.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

You’re evading the issue. Is your position that we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of GUN OWNERS left their FIREARMS at home?

The NPR article details pepper spray, stun guns and baseball bats which is very consistent with some of the left riots we’ve seen, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.

There were plenty who actually had guns there.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/23/capitol-riot-report-details-weapons-toted-by-28k-strong-trump-mob/

“Plenty”? Five firearms documented in the article, none at the Capitol, out of 28,000 people there that day. My guess is the guys and gals who were armed with firearms knew to stay out of the cap building because most responsible gun owners are exceedingly careful about where they take their firearms.

This has to be the first revolution in history where a bunch of gun owners left their guns at home.

You're right. This could be the first revolution in modern history where guns where left at home. It is what it is. Any other thoughts back on topic?

Most reasonable people in a nonpartisan context would say if the gun owners leave their firearms at home, it wasn’t an insurrection/revolution. It was a riot.

Be careful about the standards you set. E.g., protestors storming the senate during the confirmation hearings of a SCOTUS nominee.

bOtH sIDeS

(IOW not the same)

It’s not “both sides”. I’d be equally appalled at trespassing and interruption of government proceedings during the BK hearings being stretched into insurrection/revolution charges. I’d feel the same way about the attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland. But believe me that it wouldn’t take many changes to the indictments in the Jan 6 cases to be applied to the people trying to stop the BK confirmation hearings.

Except for that whole trying to overthrow the election part. It's kind of a big distinction.

Not if you expect equal justice under the law. You’re kinda proving the allegation that this is political.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to interrupt government proceedings to prevent an electoral count but it is okay to interrupt BK confirmation hearings.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to trespass and remain in the capitol building to stop and electoral count but it is legal to trespass and remain in the capital to prevent/protest BK hearings.

Again, this isn’t a defense of the J6 rioters. But your distinctions only matter if you bring politics into it.

This.

Not, not really "this", because the PP was factually incorrect about the various laws that do, and do not apply to these different circumstances.

+1 Just at its most basic level, the people at the hearings had been allowed into the Capitol and cleared by security. No one on January 6 had because the Capitol was closed to the public due to Covid.

I’d love to know which laws I’m wrong about. Prosecutorial discretion is a real thing. But political legitimacy of any government rests on the just treatment of the minority party. And that’s based on equal justice for all.

On the BK hearings, your comment is revisionist BS. There were at least 225 arrests at the BK senate confirmation hearings. I remember that very clearly. Some were arrested for blocking physical spaces and others for outbursts in the hearing room.

By elements of the crimes, the BK protestors could have been charged the same as about 75% of those charged for the J6 riots. But I think every single one paid a fine and moved on with their life. Again, prosecutorial discretion is real, but if either party truly wishes to govern in this country, then equal justice under the law has to mean something.

No, they couldn't Facts and laws matter. The BK people were prostesting and by your own admission, were arrested. The J6 people were literally staging a coup. It wasn't "riots" it was a freaking coup attempt. Hence the laws they are being charged under are related to disrupting a consitutional action, not just "a protest"

Facts and laws do matter. And you need to read the thread.

Roughly 1150 people have been arrested and charged for J6.

15 face insurrection/revolt charges (seditious conspiracy). A little over 1%.

Approx 295 have faced violence charges but not seditious conspiracy charges (assault, resisting arrest, violence in government building). About 25%.

The balance have faced disorderly conduct type charges, categorized as obstruction of an official proceeding, trespassing or remaining in a restricted government area, etc. This is about 75% of the people charged. When I say the BK protestors are in family with this 75% group, that’s what I mean. But they were given citations, paid fines and moved on with their lives.

Again, less than 2% of J6 rioters are facing insurrection/revolt/coup charges. So, no, I don’t accept that beyond the 15 people charged with seditious conspiracy that this was a coup attempt. It was a riot for the overwhelming majority of people there and DOJ’s charges reflect that reality. Otherwise, DOJ is letting over 1100 people off easy.

Hypothetical. Let’s say you have a weird mole. Let’s say that it’s malignant melanoma. That’s way less than 2% of your body, so that’s not a big deal, right? Do you have cancer or not if you just have a really small cancer? Should we globally say “Generic Republican Traitor Supporter does not have cancer,” or should we say you do?

If we say you do not have cancer, you get to move forward with your life as normal and you will not be given treatment targeting the malignant cells, but if you do say you have cancer you can get that excised and maybe a course of chemo and some scans to make sure it’s not more than just that one tiny weird mole.

Do you see where I’m going or is this way too confusing for a maga?

I see that you don’t understand how the law works. I see that you don’t understand how to make a proper analogy. I see that you don’t understand how frame an argument. And, FWIW, I suspect that you don’t really understand cancer either.

FTR, not a maga. Just someone that finds this whole thing super weird.

DP... I don't think the PP's commentary is specifically about how the law works - but it IS a very apt analogy of what is wrong with today's GOP. It has within it a malignant melanoma that keeps on growing yet the GOP refuses to accept the diagnosis and refuses to treat it.

So this is about politics after all? I said three or four pages back that nothing short of the legitimacy of our government is at stake here if this even has the whiff of politics. Here’s a comparison for you: using the state apparatus to hammer the political opposition because it won’t deal with its problems in the way YOU want is straight out of the authoritarian handbook, in particular the Latin American variety.

I want to be exceedingly clear that I believe the overwhelming majority these prosecutions meets the letter of the law for the crimes charged. I only equivocate because I haven’t done a deep dive on every case. But man-oh-man are we playing with fire here and nobody on the side in power seems to care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/6 was the redneck reverse of a BLM protest. And their savior Trump hasn't even tried to help any of his minions who got nto trouble.

No, it was way more serious than that. Sure some of the people there were just standard meal team six afficianados but others went much further. They were specifically trying to stop the electoral count and overthrow the election. It was straight up an attempted coup.

So we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of gun owners left their firearms at home? Is that how you’re seeing this?

What you’re seeing is uninformed and incorrect.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

You’re evading the issue. Is your position that we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of GUN OWNERS left their FIREARMS at home?

The NPR article details pepper spray, stun guns and baseball bats which is very consistent with some of the left riots we’ve seen, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.

There were plenty who actually had guns there.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/23/capitol-riot-report-details-weapons-toted-by-28k-strong-trump-mob/

“Plenty”? Five firearms documented in the article, none at the Capitol, out of 28,000 people there that day. My guess is the guys and gals who were armed with firearms knew to stay out of the cap building because most responsible gun owners are exceedingly careful about where they take their firearms.

This has to be the first revolution in history where a bunch of gun owners left their guns at home.

You're right. This could be the first revolution in modern history where guns where left at home. It is what it is. Any other thoughts back on topic?

Most reasonable people in a nonpartisan context would say if the gun owners leave their firearms at home, it wasn’t an insurrection/revolution. It was a riot.

Be careful about the standards you set. E.g., protestors storming the senate during the confirmation hearings of a SCOTUS nominee.

bOtH sIDeS

(IOW not the same)

It’s not “both sides”. I’d be equally appalled at trespassing and interruption of government proceedings during the BK hearings being stretched into insurrection/revolution charges. I’d feel the same way about the attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland. But believe me that it wouldn’t take many changes to the indictments in the Jan 6 cases to be applied to the people trying to stop the BK confirmation hearings.

Except for that whole trying to overthrow the election part. It's kind of a big distinction.

Not if you expect equal justice under the law. You’re kinda proving the allegation that this is political.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to interrupt government proceedings to prevent an electoral count but it is okay to interrupt BK confirmation hearings.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to trespass and remain in the capitol building to stop and electoral count but it is legal to trespass and remain in the capital to prevent/protest BK hearings.

Again, this isn’t a defense of the J6 rioters. But your distinctions only matter if you bring politics into it.

This.

Not, not really "this", because the PP was factually incorrect about the various laws that do, and do not apply to these different circumstances.

+1 Just at its most basic level, the people at the hearings had been allowed into the Capitol and cleared by security. No one on January 6 had because the Capitol was closed to the public due to Covid.

I’d love to know which laws I’m wrong about. Prosecutorial discretion is a real thing. But political legitimacy of any government rests on the just treatment of the minority party. And that’s based on equal justice for all.

On the BK hearings, your comment is revisionist BS. There were at least 225 arrests at the BK senate confirmation hearings. I remember that very clearly. Some were arrested for blocking physical spaces and others for outbursts in the hearing room.

By elements of the crimes, the BK protestors could have been charged the same as about 75% of those charged for the J6 riots. But I think every single one paid a fine and moved on with their life. Again, prosecutorial discretion is real, but if either party truly wishes to govern in this country, then equal justice under the law has to mean something.

No, they couldn't Facts and laws matter. The BK people were prostesting and by your own admission, were arrested. The J6 people were literally staging a coup. It wasn't "riots" it was a freaking coup attempt. Hence the laws they are being charged under are related to disrupting a consitutional action, not just "a protest"

Facts and laws do matter. And you need to read the thread.

Roughly 1150 people have been arrested and charged for J6.

15 face insurrection/revolt charges (seditious conspiracy). A little over 1%.

Approx 295 have faced violence charges but not seditious conspiracy charges (assault, resisting arrest, violence in government building). About 25%.

The balance have faced disorderly conduct type charges, categorized as obstruction of an official proceeding, trespassing or remaining in a restricted government area, etc. This is about 75% of the people charged. When I say the BK protestors are in family with this 75% group, that’s what I mean. But they were given citations, paid fines and moved on with their lives.

Again, less than 2% of J6 rioters are facing insurrection/revolt/coup charges. So, no, I don’t accept that beyond the 15 people charged with seditious conspiracy that this was a coup attempt. It was a riot for the overwhelming majority of people there and DOJ’s charges reflect that reality. Otherwise, DOJ is letting over 1100 people off easy.

Sucks for them. They got duped by a clown and were unwitting but planned pawns in a coup attempt. That's some serious stuff. Seems to me you're just raising questions about the wrong set of people. Why are the pawns taking the fall?

Then again, all they have to do is cooperate in the investigation of the attempted coup and show remorse for unwittingly taking part in an attempted coup and they get that slap on the wrist you say they deserve.

+1

But people need to stop pretending these people were innocent dupes. They knew what they were there for. Whether or not they were involved in the planning, they wanted to overturn the election and get their people installed. That’s what they were there to do.

They showed up because they knew what the objective and intent was. It had been all over far right Twitter, on QAnon and MAGA message boards and facebook groups and everywhere else for weeks prior. Even if they weren't there to lead the charge, they were still there at a bare minimum to support it and pay witness to it.

The word I’ve highlighted in your post is super important here. If you’re right then they should have been charged with with seditious conspiracy. That’s the rub here. You want to label all of them as seditious traitors yet only 15 of them actually faced that charge or anything similar.

The narrative doesn’t jive with the actual government response. If you’re right then you should absolutely be livid at BIDEN’s DOJ for letting so many people off the hook.

Seditious Conspriacy is hard to prove. There would need to be smoking gun emails and texts. It is easier to get prosecutions for the cut and dried charges. That is what prosecutors always do and have done in these cases.

Overcharging and overzealous prosecution of crimes for first time offenders is actually very, very rare in our country.

The prosecutorial strategy whereby we send people to prison for a long time or ruin lives on what would ordinarily be treated as minor offenses* because DEEP DOWN INSIDE WE REALLY KNOW THESE DEFENDANTS ARE EVIL is something prosecutors typically reserve for defendants who have had multiple serious run ins with the law and they know how to work the system to stay out of prison. I mean, there is a reason why RICO was deployed against the mafia.

Look, I don’t know where all this ends up, but, historically speaking, taking this turn rarely ends well.

Again, I’m excluding the ~25% of J6 defendants that got popped for violence offenses. I’m focused on the ~75% that DOJ went after for what I’ve been los self calling disorderly conduct violations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/6 was the redneck reverse of a BLM protest. And their savior Trump hasn't even tried to help any of his minions who got nto trouble.

No, it was way more serious than that. Sure some of the people there were just standard meal team six afficianados but others went much further. They were specifically trying to stop the electoral count and overthrow the election. It was straight up an attempted coup.

So we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of gun owners left their firearms at home? Is that how you’re seeing this?

What you’re seeing is uninformed and incorrect.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

You’re evading the issue. Is your position that we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of GUN OWNERS left their FIREARMS at home?

The NPR article details pepper spray, stun guns and baseball bats which is very consistent with some of the left riots we’ve seen, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.

There were plenty who actually had guns there.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/23/capitol-riot-report-details-weapons-toted-by-28k-strong-trump-mob/

“Plenty”? Five firearms documented in the article, none at the Capitol, out of 28,000 people there that day. My guess is the guys and gals who were armed with firearms knew to stay out of the cap building because most responsible gun owners are exceedingly careful about where they take their firearms.

This has to be the first revolution in history where a bunch of gun owners left their guns at home.

You're right. This could be the first revolution in modern history where guns where left at home. It is what it is. Any other thoughts back on topic?

Most reasonable people in a nonpartisan context would say if the gun owners leave their firearms at home, it wasn’t an insurrection/revolution. It was a riot.

Be careful about the standards you set. E.g., protestors storming the senate during the confirmation hearings of a SCOTUS nominee.

bOtH sIDeS

(IOW not the same)

It’s not “both sides”. I’d be equally appalled at trespassing and interruption of government proceedings during the BK hearings being stretched into insurrection/revolution charges. I’d feel the same way about the attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland. But believe me that it wouldn’t take many changes to the indictments in the Jan 6 cases to be applied to the people trying to stop the BK confirmation hearings.

Except for that whole trying to overthrow the election part. It's kind of a big distinction.

Not if you expect equal justice under the law. You’re kinda proving the allegation that this is political.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to interrupt government proceedings to prevent an electoral count but it is okay to interrupt BK confirmation hearings.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to trespass and remain in the capitol building to stop and electoral count but it is legal to trespass and remain in the capital to prevent/protest BK hearings.

Again, this isn’t a defense of the J6 rioters. But your distinctions only matter if you bring politics into it.

This.

Not, not really "this", because the PP was factually incorrect about the various laws that do, and do not apply to these different circumstances.

+1 Just at its most basic level, the people at the hearings had been allowed into the Capitol and cleared by security. No one on January 6 had because the Capitol was closed to the public due to Covid.

I’d love to know which laws I’m wrong about. Prosecutorial discretion is a real thing. But political legitimacy of any government rests on the just treatment of the minority party. And that’s based on equal justice for all.

On the BK hearings, your comment is revisionist BS. There were at least 225 arrests at the BK senate confirmation hearings. I remember that very clearly. Some were arrested for blocking physical spaces and others for outbursts in the hearing room.

By elements of the crimes, the BK protestors could have been charged the same as about 75% of those charged for the J6 riots. But I think every single one paid a fine and moved on with their life. Again, prosecutorial discretion is real, but if either party truly wishes to govern in this country, then equal justice under the law has to mean something.

No, they couldn't Facts and laws matter. The BK people were prostesting and by your own admission, were arrested. The J6 people were literally staging a coup. It wasn't "riots" it was a freaking coup attempt. Hence the laws they are being charged under are related to disrupting a consitutional action, not just "a protest"

Facts and laws do matter. And you need to read the thread.

Roughly 1150 people have been arrested and charged for J6.

15 face insurrection/revolt charges (seditious conspiracy). A little over 1%.

Approx 295 have faced violence charges but not seditious conspiracy charges (assault, resisting arrest, violence in government building). About 25%.

The balance have faced disorderly conduct type charges, categorized as obstruction of an official proceeding, trespassing or remaining in a restricted government area, etc. This is about 75% of the people charged. When I say the BK protestors are in family with this 75% group, that’s what I mean. But they were given citations, paid fines and moved on with their lives.

Again, less than 2% of J6 rioters are facing insurrection/revolt/coup charges. So, no, I don’t accept that beyond the 15 people charged with seditious conspiracy that this was a coup attempt. It was a riot for the overwhelming majority of people there and DOJ’s charges reflect that reality. Otherwise, DOJ is letting over 1100 people off easy.

Hypothetical. Let’s say you have a weird mole. Let’s say that it’s malignant melanoma. That’s way less than 2% of your body, so that’s not a big deal, right? Do you have cancer or not if you just have a really small cancer? Should we globally say “Generic Republican Traitor Supporter does not have cancer,” or should we say you do?

If we say you do not have cancer, you get to move forward with your life as normal and you will not be given treatment targeting the malignant cells, but if you do say you have cancer you can get that excised and maybe a course of chemo and some scans to make sure it’s not more than just that one tiny weird mole.

Do you see where I’m going or is this way too confusing for a maga?

I see that you don’t understand how the law works. I see that you don’t understand how to make a proper analogy. I see that you don’t understand how frame an argument. And, FWIW, I suspect that you don’t really understand cancer either.

FTR, not a maga. Just someone that finds this whole thing super weird.

DP... I don't think the PP's commentary is specifically about how the law works - but it IS a very apt analogy of what is wrong with today's GOP. It has within it a malignant melanoma that keeps on growing yet the GOP refuses to accept the diagnosis and refuses to treat it.

So this is about politics after all? I said three or four pages back that nothing short of the legitimacy of our government is at stake here if this even has the whiff of politics. Here’s a comparison for you: using the state apparatus to hammer the political opposition because it won’t deal with its problems in the way YOU want is straight out of the authoritarian handbook, in particular the Latin American variety.

I want to be exceedingly clear that I believe the overwhelming majority these prosecutions meets the letter of the law for the crimes charged. I only equivocate because I haven’t done a deep dive on every case. But man-oh-man are we playing with fire here and nobody on the side in power seems to care.

You can't be serious. You don't get to commit crimes scot free because you are a political figure and you are protected because "it's playing with fire" to prosecute. Screw that.

If you want to be a public servant, be a public servant. Don't run for office so you can be protected from getting held accountable for criminal activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats and their surrogates spent six years attacking Trump. In fact, they were talking about impeachment six months before Trump was even elected.

Don't behave like that and expect nothing in return.

This!

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Check out this interview if you want the truth!

[url]https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1686799149109256192[/twitter]

Nothing Tucker Carlson says is the truth. He was fired from Fox News for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out this interview if you want the truth!

[url]https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1686799149109256192[/twitter]

Nothing Tucker Carlson says is the truth. He was fired from Fox News for a reason.

That reason was because he was telling the truth, and thus, exposing Democrats

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/6 was the redneck reverse of a BLM protest. And their savior Trump hasn't even tried to help any of his minions who got nto trouble.

No, it was way more serious than that. Sure some of the people there were just standard meal team six afficianados but others went much further. They were specifically trying to stop the electoral count and overthrow the election. It was straight up an attempted coup.

So we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of gun owners left their firearms at home? Is that how you’re seeing this?

What you’re seeing is uninformed and incorrect.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

You’re evading the issue. Is your position that we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of GUN OWNERS left their FIREARMS at home?

The NPR article details pepper spray, stun guns and baseball bats which is very consistent with some of the left riots we’ve seen, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.

There were plenty who actually had guns there.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/23/capitol-riot-report-details-weapons-toted-by-28k-strong-trump-mob/

“Plenty”? Five firearms documented in the article, none at the Capitol, out of 28,000 people there that day. My guess is the guys and gals who were armed with firearms knew to stay out of the cap building because most responsible gun owners are exceedingly careful about where they take their firearms.

This has to be the first revolution in history where a bunch of gun owners left their guns at home.

You're right. This could be the first revolution in modern history where guns where left at home. It is what it is. Any other thoughts back on topic?

Most reasonable people in a nonpartisan context would say if the gun owners leave their firearms at home, it wasn’t an insurrection/revolution. It was a riot.

Be careful about the standards you set. E.g., protestors storming the senate during the confirmation hearings of a SCOTUS nominee.

bOtH sIDeS

(IOW not the same)

It’s not “both sides”. I’d be equally appalled at trespassing and interruption of government proceedings during the BK hearings being stretched into insurrection/revolution charges. I’d feel the same way about the attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland. But believe me that it wouldn’t take many changes to the indictments in the Jan 6 cases to be applied to the people trying to stop the BK confirmation hearings.

Except for that whole trying to overthrow the election part. It's kind of a big distinction.

Not if you expect equal justice under the law. You’re kinda proving the allegation that this is political.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to interrupt government proceedings to prevent an electoral count but it is okay to interrupt BK confirmation hearings.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to trespass and remain in the capitol building to stop and electoral count but it is legal to trespass and remain in the capital to prevent/protest BK hearings.

Again, this isn’t a defense of the J6 rioters. But your distinctions only matter if you bring politics into it.

This.

Not, not really "this", because the PP was factually incorrect about the various laws that do, and do not apply to these different circumstances.

+1 Just at its most basic level, the people at the hearings had been allowed into the Capitol and cleared by security. No one on January 6 had because the Capitol was closed to the public due to Covid.

I’d love to know which laws I’m wrong about. Prosecutorial discretion is a real thing. But political legitimacy of any government rests on the just treatment of the minority party. And that’s based on equal justice for all.

On the BK hearings, your comment is revisionist BS. There were at least 225 arrests at the BK senate confirmation hearings. I remember that very clearly. Some were arrested for blocking physical spaces and others for outbursts in the hearing room.

By elements of the crimes, the BK protestors could have been charged the same as about 75% of those charged for the J6 riots. But I think every single one paid a fine and moved on with their life. Again, prosecutorial discretion is real, but if either party truly wishes to govern in this country, then equal justice under the law has to mean something.

No, they couldn't Facts and laws matter. The BK people were prostesting and by your own admission, were arrested. The J6 people were literally staging a coup. It wasn't "riots" it was a freaking coup attempt. Hence the laws they are being charged under are related to disrupting a consitutional action, not just "a protest"

Facts and laws do matter. And you need to read the thread.

Roughly 1150 people have been arrested and charged for J6.

15 face insurrection/revolt charges (seditious conspiracy). A little over 1%.

Approx 295 have faced violence charges but not seditious conspiracy charges (assault, resisting arrest, violence in government building). About 25%.

The balance have faced disorderly conduct type charges, categorized as obstruction of an official proceeding, trespassing or remaining in a restricted government area, etc. This is about 75% of the people charged. When I say the BK protestors are in family with this 75% group, that’s what I mean. But they were given citations, paid fines and moved on with their lives.

Again, less than 2% of J6 rioters are facing insurrection/revolt/coup charges. So, no, I don’t accept that beyond the 15 people charged with seditious conspiracy that this was a coup attempt. It was a riot for the overwhelming majority of people there and DOJ’s charges reflect that reality. Otherwise, DOJ is letting over 1100 people off easy.

Hypothetical. Let’s say you have a weird mole. Let’s say that it’s malignant melanoma. That’s way less than 2% of your body, so that’s not a big deal, right? Do you have cancer or not if you just have a really small cancer? Should we globally say “Generic Republican Traitor Supporter does not have cancer,” or should we say you do?

If we say you do not have cancer, you get to move forward with your life as normal and you will not be given treatment targeting the malignant cells, but if you do say you have cancer you can get that excised and maybe a course of chemo and some scans to make sure it’s not more than just that one tiny weird mole.

Do you see where I’m going or is this way too confusing for a maga?

I see that you don’t understand how the law works. I see that you don’t understand how to make a proper analogy. I see that you don’t understand how frame an argument. And, FWIW, I suspect that you don’t really understand cancer either.

FTR, not a maga. Just someone that finds this whole thing super weird.

DP... I don't think the PP's commentary is specifically about how the law works - but it IS a very apt analogy of what is wrong with today's GOP. It has within it a malignant melanoma that keeps on growing yet the GOP refuses to accept the diagnosis and refuses to treat it.

So this is about politics after all? I said three or four pages back that nothing short of the legitimacy of our government is at stake here if this even has the whiff of politics. Here’s a comparison for you: using the state apparatus to hammer the political opposition because it won’t deal with its problems in the way YOU want is straight out of the authoritarian handbook, in particular the Latin American variety.

I want to be exceedingly clear that I believe the overwhelming majority these prosecutions meets the letter of the law for the crimes charged. I only equivocate because I haven’t done a deep dive on every case. But man-oh-man are we playing with fire here and nobody on the side in power seems to care.

I don’t think it’s about politics, but the GOP is defending and making excuses for criminals. They’re trying to make criminals out to be victims. That is dangerous. Wanting to excuse and not prosecute people who broke the law, but have similar political beliefs, is straight up corruption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1/6 was the redneck reverse of a BLM protest. And their savior Trump hasn't even tried to help any of his minions who got nto trouble.

Yes, let's talk about the BLM protests in this context:

Remember this BS when the right tries to compare the BLM "riots" to 1/6.

Paricularly in light of who was causing the mayhem in different American cities, using the peaceful Floyd protests as cover:


https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-17/far-right-boogaloo-boys-linked-to-killing-of-california-lawmen-other-violence


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53579099


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-man-boogaloo-movement-pleads-guilty-firing-police-station-floyd-rcna2499


https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/23/man-linked-far-right-boogaloo-bois-charged-after-allegedly-firing-ak-47-minneapolis-precinct/

Add to it, who was one of the Oath Keepers who was part of both the 1/6 coup attempt and the "riots" in Furguson, MO?

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-246-oath-keepers-in-ferguson-exonorating-ethel-rosenberg-digitally-faking-death-and-more-1.3189944/an-oath-keeper-on-guns-race-and-ferguson-1.3189972

(hint, Biggs)

IOW, the right wing has been projecting on the US the very mayhem and crimes they are perpatrating. The riots, the racial tensions, BLM the Portland "protests" - all of it was right wingers. Remember how "reporter" Andy Ngo just happened to be at various places around the country where these things were happening? Yep, all manufactured to provide video footage of disturbances to scare suburbanites into voting for the "law and order" party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/6 was the redneck reverse of a BLM protest. And their savior Trump hasn't even tried to help any of his minions who got nto trouble.

Yes, let's talk about the BLM protests in this context:

Remember this BS when the right tries to compare the BLM "riots" to 1/6.

Paricularly in light of who was causing the mayhem in different American cities, using the peaceful Floyd protests as cover:


https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-17/far-right-boogaloo-boys-linked-to-killing-of-california-lawmen-other-violence


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53579099


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-man-boogaloo-movement-pleads-guilty-firing-police-station-floyd-rcna2499


https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/23/man-linked-far-right-boogaloo-bois-charged-after-allegedly-firing-ak-47-minneapolis-precinct/

Add to it, who was one of the Oath Keepers who was part of both the 1/6 coup attempt and the "riots" in Furguson, MO?

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-246-oath-keepers-in-ferguson-exonorating-ethel-rosenberg-digitally-faking-death-and-more-1.3189944/an-oath-keeper-on-guns-race-and-ferguson-1.3189972

(hint, Biggs)

IOW, the right wing has been projecting on the US the very mayhem and crimes they are perpatrating. The riots, the racial tensions, BLM the Portland "protests" - all of it was right wingers. Remember how "reporter" Andy Ngo just happened to be at various places around the country where these things were happening? Yep, all manufactured to provide video footage of disturbances to scare suburbanites into voting for the "law and order" party.

So what you are saying is that it was right wing groups masquerading as BLM protesters saying defund the police? That’s your defense? Did they create the BLM website?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In fact, they were talking about impeachment six months before Trump was even elected.

Excuse us for correctly predicting that the guy would commit crimes in office, I guess?

I still remember very early in his term when Van Jones said he became president in that moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPhsSqXHRAs
Then the first comment below the video: "He managed to read off a teleprompter and not randomly yell things. What an accomplishment!"