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:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

It very clearly was.

Not according to the jury.

Jury nullification in DC does not change facts and is part the reason the criminal justice system in DC is so hopelessly broken.

No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”. GMAFB.

A first year law student could have gotten an assault verdict on these facts before an impartial jury. Like after only a few weeks of taking crim law.

Nope. No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”.

It’s not what you think. It’s what the statute says.

It’s what the jury thinks.

“The legal standard is what an ordinary reasonable person under the same circumstances as the victim would have believed.”

Correct. Any reasonable person on a jury would find that an offensive touching occurred that satisfied a finding of assault. DC juries are not reasonable. They are made up of political activists and aspiring criminals.

Please cite the case law showing that this was “offensive touching” in such a clear cut manner.

It’s DC. People should expect to have things thrown at them. It’s part of the culture.

+1. Innocent people flee police everyday in DC. That’s just how we roll.

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:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

It very clearly was.

Not according to the jury.

Jury nullification in DC does not change facts and is part the reason the criminal justice system in DC is so hopelessly broken.

No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”. GMAFB.

A first year law student could have gotten an assault verdict on these facts before an impartial jury. Like after only a few weeks of taking crim law.

Nope. No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”.

It’s not what you think. It’s what the statute says.

It’s what the jury thinks.

“The legal standard is what an ordinary reasonable person under the same circumstances as the victim would have believed.”

Correct. Any reasonable person on a jury would find that an offensive touching occurred that satisfied a finding of assault. DC juries are not reasonable. They are made up of political activists and aspiring criminals.

As opposed to the administration and this DOJ, both made up of actual criminals and liars.

Ahhh, but if it wasn’t assault why did he run?

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:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

It very clearly was.

Not according to the jury.

Jury nullification in DC does not change facts and is part the reason the criminal justice system in DC is so hopelessly broken.

No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”. GMAFB.

A first year law student could have gotten an assault verdict on these facts before an impartial jury. Like after only a few weeks of taking crim law.

Nope. No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”.

It’s not what you think. It’s what the statute says.

It’s what the jury thinks.

“The legal standard is what an ordinary reasonable person under the same circumstances as the victim would have believed.”

Correct. Any reasonable person on a jury would find that an offensive touching occurred that satisfied a finding of assault. DC juries are not reasonable. They are made up of political activists and aspiring criminals.

No, they wouldn’t.

You’d be faux offended by someone tapping your shoulder.

Maybe you would Karen. I live in the real world, where people get bumped on the Metro, on the playground etc. The jury correctly ascertained that the law enforcement officer being forced to small mustard from the Subway sandwich tossed by a drunk guy did not constitute assault.

Yes, obviously it wasn't assault. Maybe read the comments before responding, dickhead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

+1 However, I would like to hear an explanation of how Trump pardoned 1000+ people, many of whom carried deadly weapons and bludgeoned police officers and caused millions of dollars of destruction to the US Capitol. And Trump even hired some of the January 6 domestic terrorists like Jared Wise who is on video encouraging rioters to kill police officers---he's now paid by our tax dollars as Senior Adviser at the DOJ.

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:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

It very clearly was.

Not according to the jury.

Jury nullification in DC does not change facts and is part the reason the criminal justice system in DC is so hopelessly broken.

No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”. GMAFB.

A first year law student could have gotten an assault verdict on these facts before an impartial jury. Like after only a few weeks of taking crim law.

Nope. No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”.

It’s not what you think. It’s what the statute says.

It’s what the jury thinks.

“The legal standard is what an ordinary reasonable person under the same circumstances as the victim would have believed.”

Correct. Any reasonable person on a jury would find that an offensive touching occurred that satisfied a finding of assault. DC juries are not reasonable. They are made up of political activists and aspiring criminals.

No, they wouldn’t.

You’d be faux offended by someone tapping your shoulder.

Maybe you would Karen. I live in the real world, where people get bumped on the Metro, on the playground etc. The jury correctly ascertained that the law enforcement officer being forced to small mustard from the Subway sandwich tossed by a drunk guy did not constitute assault.

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:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

It very clearly was.

Not according to the jury.

Jury nullification in DC does not change facts and is part the reason the criminal justice system in DC is so hopelessly broken.

No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”. GMAFB.

A first year law student could have gotten an assault verdict on these facts before an impartial jury. Like after only a few weeks of taking crim law.

Nope. No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”.

It’s not what you think. It’s what the statute says.

It’s what the jury thinks.

“The legal standard is what an ordinary reasonable person under the same circumstances as the victim would have believed.”

Correct. Any reasonable person on a jury would find that an offensive touching occurred that satisfied a finding of assault. DC juries are not reasonable. They are made up of political activists and aspiring criminals.

You clearly don't live in DC. Many of those picked for jury duty are well-educated. In fact, DC has more lawyers per capital than any other city and as a result, we don't get excused for jury duty as a matter of course like we would elsewhere. I served on a jury last year along with a NASA engineer, an EPA attorney, and a paralegal. It's not a perfect system but juries do try to get it right.

The jury in this case got it right. It was a sandwich! The agent testified about the overpowering smell of mustard and onions when the sandwich hit him. It's ridiculous to think that constitutes an assault.

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:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

It very clearly was.

Not according to the jury.

Jury nullification in DC does not change facts and is part the reason the criminal justice system in DC is so hopelessly broken.

No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”. GMAFB.

A first year law student could have gotten an assault verdict on these facts before an impartial jury. Like after only a few weeks of taking crim law.

Nope. No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”.

It’s not what you think. It’s what the statute says.

It’s what the jury thinks.

“The legal standard is what an ordinary reasonable person under the same circumstances as the victim would have believed.”

Correct. Any reasonable person on a jury would find that an offensive touching occurred that satisfied a finding of assault. DC juries are not reasonable. They are made up of political activists and aspiring criminals.

Please cite the case law showing that this was “offensive touching” in such a clear cut manner.

It’s DC. People should expect to have things thrown at them. It’s part of the culture.

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:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

It very clearly was.

Not according to the jury.

Jury nullification in DC does not change facts and is part the reason the criminal justice system in DC is so hopelessly broken.

No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”. GMAFB.

A first year law student could have gotten an assault verdict on these facts before an impartial jury. Like after only a few weeks of taking crim law.

Nope. No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”.

It’s not what you think. It’s what the statute says.

It’s actually what the common law interpretation of “assault” is in DC. because the statute just says “assault.” Assault is famously hard to define.

https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/Hernandez%20v%20US%2015-CM-130_0.pdf

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:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

It very clearly was.

Not according to the jury.

Jury nullification in DC does not change facts and is part the reason the criminal justice system in DC is so hopelessly broken.

No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”. GMAFB.

A first year law student could have gotten an assault verdict on these facts before an impartial jury. Like after only a few weeks of taking crim law.

Nope. No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”.

It’s not what you think. It’s what the statute says.

It’s what the jury thinks.

“The legal standard is what an ordinary reasonable person under the same circumstances as the victim would have believed.”

Correct. Any reasonable person on a jury would find that an offensive touching occurred that satisfied a finding of assault. DC juries are not reasonable. They are made up of political activists and aspiring criminals.

Please cite the case law showing that this was “offensive touching” in such a clear cut manner.

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:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

It very clearly was.

Not according to the jury.

Jury nullification in DC does not change facts and is part the reason the criminal justice system in DC is so hopelessly broken.

No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”. GMAFB.

A first year law student could have gotten an assault verdict on these facts before an impartial jury. Like after only a few weeks of taking crim law.

Nope. No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”.

It’s not what you think. It’s what the statute says.

It’s what the jury thinks.

“The legal standard is what an ordinary reasonable person under the same circumstances as the victim would have believed.”

Correct. Any reasonable person on a jury would find that an offensive touching occurred that satisfied a finding of assault. DC juries are not reasonable. They are made up of political activists and aspiring criminals.

No, they wouldn’t.

You’d be faux offended by someone tapping your shoulder.

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:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

It very clearly was.

Not according to the jury.

Jury nullification in DC does not change facts and is part the reason the criminal justice system in DC is so hopelessly broken.

No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”. GMAFB.

A first year law student could have gotten an assault verdict on these facts before an impartial jury. Like after only a few weeks of taking crim law.

Nope. No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”.

It’s not what you think. It’s what the statute says.

It’s what the jury thinks.

“The legal standard is what an ordinary reasonable person under the same circumstances as the victim would have believed.”

Correct. Any reasonable person on a jury would find that an offensive touching occurred that satisfied a finding of assault. DC juries are not reasonable. They are made up of political activists and aspiring criminals.

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:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

It very clearly was.

Not according to the jury.

Jury nullification in DC does not change facts and is part the reason the criminal justice system in DC is so hopelessly broken.

No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”. GMAFB.

A first year law student could have gotten an assault verdict on these facts before an impartial jury. Like after only a few weeks of taking crim law.

Nope. No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”.

It’s not what you think. It’s what the statute says.

It’s what the jury thinks.

“The legal standard is what an ordinary reasonable person under the same circumstances as the victim would have believed.”

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:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

It very clearly was.

Not according to the jury.

Jury nullification in DC does not change facts and is part the reason the criminal justice system in DC is so hopelessly broken.

No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”. GMAFB.

A first year law student could have gotten an assault verdict on these facts before an impartial jury. Like after only a few weeks of taking crim law.

Nope. No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”.

It’s not what you think. It’s what the statute says.

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:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

It very clearly was.

Not according to the jury.

Jury nullification in DC does not change facts and is part the reason the criminal justice system in DC is so hopelessly broken.

No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”. GMAFB.

A first year law student could have gotten an assault verdict on these facts before an impartial jury. Like after only a few weeks of taking crim law.

Nope. No reasonable person thinks this was an “assault”.