Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Their conspirators were actually in the Capitol looking for the Speaker and VP."

Not close to proven, and there is reason to think that particular claim was the creation of Ray Epps and his buddies.

---

There is video of them in the Capitol. Nobody representing the defendant has asserted he wasn't in the Capitol

---

Video of whom and doing what, precisely? There's a lot of noise out there, but most of it is less worthy of attention than a fit of flatulence.

---

The defendant
Are you disputing that?

---

Where is that video?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

What are the Oathkeepers? I heard they are a "far-right" group ... but from people that consider public school parents domestic terrorists.

In fairness to the guy, I think these hardcore gun guys do a lot of ad hoc ammo sales. I think last year there was some terrorism scare in Denver that turned out to be a guy selling guns. My point is that's not (pun intended) a smoking gun.

---

Do you think they took ammo to DC to sell it?

---

I don't have an opinion. . Without evidence motive is difficult to prove. Do you have evidence that clarifies their motive or intent?

---

We only know what the indictment alleges. Do you believe this is all the feds have?

---

Do you think if a kid shoplifts he should be charged with armed robbery because he has a gun at his house? No
Should people caught speeding be charged with DUI if they have a fridge full of beer at home? No

---

If people buy and transport weapons to DC in order to keep a losing candidate as POTUS, that is insurrection not shoplifting.

If people cache weapons nearby with the idea of bringing them to the Capitol to violently prevent the counting of the Electoral Votes, that's insurrection, not DUI.

---

Are you favor of charging people with crimes they might have committed? Every indictment is an allegation against a person for crimes they have committed.
I think you missed the point. So if a person thinks about killing someone but doesn't, should she be charged with murder? Conspiracy to commit murder

If they brought the guns for an insurrection, why didn't they bring them to the planned insurrection? The master mind did not call them to the Capitol. The conspirators are alleged to have brought weapons for the purpose of keeping Trump in office

---

The conspirators were on call with weapons they brought to DC area

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

What are the Oathkeepers? I heard they are a "far-right" group ... but from people that consider public school parents domestic terrorists.

In fairness to the guy, I think these hardcore gun guys do a lot of ad hoc ammo sales. I think last year there was some terrorism scare in Denver that turned out to be a guy selling guns. My point is that's not (pun intended) a smoking gun.

---

Do you think they took ammo to DC to sell it?

---

I don't have an opinion. . Without evidence motive is difficult to prove. Do you have evidence that clarifies their motive or intent?

---

We only know what the indictment alleges. Do you believe this is all the feds have?

---

Do you think if a kid shoplifts he should be charged with armed robbery because he has a gun at his house? No
Should people caught speeding be charged with DUI if they have a fridge full of beer at home? No

---

If people buy and transport weapons to DC in order to keep a losing candidate as POTUS, that is insurrection not shoplifting.

If people cache weapons nearby with the idea of bringing them to the Capitol to violently prevent the counting of the Electoral Votes, that's insurrection, not DUI.

---

Are you favor of charging people with crimes they might have committed? Every indictment is an allegation against a person for crimes they have committed.
I think you missed the point. So if a person thinks about killing someone but doesn't, should she be charged with murder? Conspiracy to commit murder

If they brought the guns for an insurrection, why didn't they bring them to the planned insurrection? The master mind did not call them to the Capitol. The conspirators are alleged to have brought weapons for the purpose of keeping Trump in office

---

The conspirators were on call with weapons they brought to DC area

---

Oh now it's the 'DC AREA'. Got it. They had legal weapons in a separate state. Dastardly.

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"Their conspirators were actually in the Capitol looking for the Speaker and VP."

Not close to proven, and there is reason to think that particular claim was the creation of Ray Epps and his buddies.

---

There is video of them in the Capitol. Nobody representing the defendant has asserted he wasn't in the Capitol

---

Being "in the Capitol" is trespass, not insurrection or whatever else you want to pretend.

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

What are the Oathkeepers? I heard they are a "far-right" group ... but from people that consider public school parents domestic terrorists.

In fairness to the guy, I think these hardcore gun guys do a lot of ad hoc ammo sales. I think last year there was some terrorism scare in Denver that turned out to be a guy selling guns. My point is that's not (pun intended) a smoking gun.

---

Do you think they took ammo to DC to sell it?

---

I don't have an opinion. . Without evidence motive is difficult to prove. Do you have evidence that clarifies their motive or intent?

---

We only know what the indictment alleges. Do you believe this is all the feds have?

---

Do you think if a kid shoplifts he should be charged with armed robbery because he has a gun at his house? No
Should people caught speeding be charged with DUI if they have a fridge full of beer at home? No

---

If people buy and transport weapons to DC in order to keep a losing candidate as POTUS, that is insurrection not shoplifting.

If people cache weapons nearby with the idea of bringing them to the Capitol to violently prevent the counting of the Electoral Votes, that's insurrection, not DUI.

---

Are you favor of charging people with crimes they might have committed? Every indictment is an allegation against a person for crimes they have committed.
I think you missed the point. So if a person thinks about killing someone but doesn't, should she be charged with murder? Conspiracy to commit murder

If they brought the guns for an insurrection, why didn't they bring them to the planned insurrection? The master mind did not call them to the Capitol. The conspirators are alleged to have brought weapons for the purpose of keeping Trump in office

---

The conspirators were on call with weapons they brought to DC area

---

So much for 'innocent until proven guilty', hmm?

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

What are the Oathkeepers? I heard they are a "far-right" group ... but from people that consider public school parents domestic terrorists.

In fairness to the guy, I think these hardcore gun guys do a lot of ad hoc ammo sales. I think last year there was some terrorism scare in Denver that turned out to be a guy selling guns. My point is that's not (pun intended) a smoking gun.

---

Do you think they took ammo to DC to sell it?

---

I don't have an opinion. . Without evidence motive is difficult to prove. Do you have evidence that clarifies their motive or intent?

---

We only know what the indictment alleges. Do you believe this is all the feds have?

---

Do you think if a kid shoplifts he should be charged with armed robbery because he has a gun at his house? No
Should people caught speeding be charged with DUI if they have a fridge full of beer at home? No

---

If people buy and transport weapons to DC in order to keep a losing candidate as POTUS, that is insurrection not shoplifting.

If people cache weapons nearby with the idea of bringing them to the Capitol to violently prevent the counting of the Electoral Votes, that's insurrection, not DUI.

---

no it isnt.. its a plan to commit insurrection. For it to be insurection, you actually have to bring the weapons to the capital.

that plan was not enacted because the weapons never left the store house(hotel room). That is why you have conspiracy charges and not insurrection charges.

Its ok to admit it, we already know..

---

Nobody withdrew from the conspiracy or changed their minds about inserting Trump into the presidency.

---

I must have missed the part where they said that Trump was now the President and Biden not. I recall Pence saying it was certified and power peacefully changed on Jan 20th. O guess I missed that take over part.

---

It's in the indictment

---

Wrong answer. The indictment is written by the prosecute. They can prosecute for intent, planning or even conspiracy, but what actually happened was the peaceful transfer of power. That is a fact. Pence may have saved them from what you describe, but you can't get away from what actually happened. All I know is I saw a bunch of clowns taking selfies, any other charges need to be proven. Demonstration out of control? Yup. Prosecute those that went in the Capitol, no problem. The rest? I am still not sure.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

What are the Oathkeepers? I heard they are a "far-right" group ... but from people that consider public school parents domestic terrorists.

In fairness to the guy, I think these hardcore gun guys do a lot of ad hoc ammo sales. I think last year there was some terrorism scare in Denver that turned out to be a guy selling guns. My point is that's not (pun intended) a smoking gun.

---

Do you think they took ammo to DC to sell it?

---

I don't have an opinion. . Without evidence motive is difficult to prove. Do you have evidence that clarifies their motive or intent?

---

We only know what the indictment alleges. Do you believe this is all the feds have?

---

Do you think if a kid shoplifts he should be charged with armed robbery because he has a gun at his house? No
Should people caught speeding be charged with DUI if they have a fridge full of beer at home? No

---

If people buy and transport weapons to DC in order to keep a losing candidate as POTUS, that is insurrection not shoplifting.

If people cache weapons nearby with the idea of bringing them to the Capitol to violently prevent the counting of the Electoral Votes, that's insurrection, not DUI.

---

Are you favor of charging people with crimes they might have committed? Every indictment is an allegation against a person for crimes they have committed.
I think you missed the point. So if a person thinks about killing someone but doesn't, should she be charged with murder? Conspiracy to commit murder

If they brought the guns for an insurrection, why didn't they bring them to the planned insurrection? The master mind did not call them to the Capitol. The conspirators are alleged to have brought weapons for the purpose of keeping Trump in office

---

The conspirators were on call with weapons they brought to DC area

---

So much for 'innocent until proven guilty', hmm?

---

It's in the indictment. Must be proven brd
Can't get to trial without an indictment

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

What are the Oathkeepers? I heard they are a "far-right" group ... but from people that consider public school parents domestic terrorists.

In fairness to the guy, I think these hardcore gun guys do a lot of ad hoc ammo sales. I think last year there was some terrorism scare in Denver that turned out to be a guy selling guns. My point is that's not (pun intended) a smoking gun.

---

Do you think they took ammo to DC to sell it?

---

I don't have an opinion. . Without evidence motive is difficult to prove. Do you have evidence that clarifies their motive or intent?

---

We only know what the indictment alleges. Do you believe this is all the feds have?

---

Do you think if a kid shoplifts he should be charged with armed robbery because he has a gun at his house? No
Should people caught speeding be charged with DUI if they have a fridge full of beer at home? No

---

If people buy and transport weapons to DC in order to keep a losing candidate as POTUS, that is insurrection not shoplifting.

If people cache weapons nearby with the idea of bringing them to the Capitol to violently prevent the counting of the Electoral Votes, that's insurrection, not DUI.

---

no it isnt.. its a plan to commit insurrection. For it to be insurection, you actually have to bring the weapons to the capital.

that plan was not enacted because the weapons never left the store house(hotel room). That is why you have conspiracy charges and not insurrection charges.

Its ok to admit it, we already know..

---

Nobody withdrew from the conspiracy or changed their minds about inserting Trump into the presidency.

---

I must have missed the part where they said that Trump was now the President and Biden not. I recall Pence saying it was certified and power peacefully changed on Jan 20th. O guess I missed that take over part.

---

It's in the indictment

---

Wrong answer. The indictment is written by the prosecute. They can prosecute for intent, planning or even conspiracy, but what actually happened was the peaceful transfer of power. That is a fact. Pence may have saved them from what you describe, but you can't get away from what actually happened. All I know is I saw a bunch of clowns taking selfies, any other charges need to be proven. Demonstration out of control? Yup. Prosecute those that went in the Capitol, no problem. The rest? I am still not sure.

---

An unsuccessful attempt is still an attempt.
Must be proven brd

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

What are the Oathkeepers? I heard they are a "far-right" group ... but from people that consider public school parents domestic terrorists.

In fairness to the guy, I think these hardcore gun guys do a lot of ad hoc ammo sales. I think last year there was some terrorism scare in Denver that turned out to be a guy selling guns. My point is that's not (pun intended) a smoking gun.

---

Do you think they took ammo to DC to sell it?

---

I don't have an opinion. . Without evidence motive is difficult to prove. Do you have evidence that clarifies their motive or intent?

---

We only know what the indictment alleges. Do you believe this is all the feds have?

---

Do you think if a kid shoplifts he should be charged with armed robbery because he has a gun at his house? No
Should people caught speeding be charged with DUI if they have a fridge full of beer at home? No

---

If people buy and transport weapons to DC in order to keep a losing candidate as POTUS, that is insurrection not shoplifting.

If people cache weapons nearby with the idea of bringing them to the Capitol to violently prevent the counting of the Electoral Votes, that's insurrection, not DUI.

---

Are you favor of charging people with crimes they might have committed? Every indictment is an allegation against a person for crimes they have committed.
I think you missed the point. So if a person thinks about killing someone but doesn't, should she be charged with murder? Conspiracy to commit murder

If they brought the guns for an insurrection, why didn't they bring them to the planned insurrection? The master mind did not call them to the Capitol. The conspirators are alleged to have brought weapons for the purpose of keeping Trump in office

---

The conspirators were on call with weapons they brought to DC area

---

So much for 'innocent until proven guilty', hmm?

---

It's in the indictment. Must be proven brd
Can't get to trial without an indictment

---

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

What are the Oathkeepers? I heard they are a "far-right" group ... but from people that consider public school parents domestic terrorists.

In fairness to the guy, I think these hardcore gun guys do a lot of ad hoc ammo sales. I think last year there was some terrorism scare in Denver that turned out to be a guy selling guns. My point is that's not (pun intended) a smoking gun.

---

Do you think they took ammo to DC to sell it?

---

I don't have an opinion. . Without evidence motive is difficult to prove. Do you have evidence that clarifies their motive or intent?

---

We only know what the indictment alleges. Do you believe this is all the feds have?

---

Do you think if a kid shoplifts he should be charged with armed robbery because he has a gun at his house? No
Should people caught speeding be charged with DUI if they have a fridge full of beer at home? No

---

If people buy and transport weapons to DC in order to keep a losing candidate as POTUS, that is insurrection not shoplifting.

If people cache weapons nearby with the idea of bringing them to the Capitol to violently prevent the counting of the Electoral Votes, that's insurrection, not DUI.

---

no it isnt.. its a plan to commit insurrection. For it to be insurection, you actually have to bring the weapons to the capital.

that plan was not enacted because the weapons never left the store house(hotel room). That is why you have conspiracy charges and not insurrection charges.

Its ok to admit it, we already know..

---

Nobody withdrew from the conspiracy or changed their minds about inserting Trump into the presidency.

---

I must have missed the part where they said that Trump was now the President and Biden not. I recall Pence saying it was certified and power peacefully changed on Jan 20th. O guess I missed that take over part.

---

It's in the indictment

---

Wrong answer. The indictment is written by the prosecute. They can prosecute for intent, planning or even conspiracy, but what actually happened was the peaceful transfer of power. That is a fact. Pence may have saved them from what you describe, but you can't get away from what actually happened. All I know is I saw a bunch of clowns taking selfies, any other charges need to be proven. Demonstration out of control? Yup. Prosecute those that went in the Capitol, no problem. The rest? I am still not sure.

---

An unsuccessful attempt is still an attempt.
Must be proven brd

---

A bunch of idiots conspiring is one thing, happens all the time. Idiots are idiots. Jan 6th did not look like a a serious insurrection more like a comicom with selfies convention. Maybe you are talking about another group and another plot. I agree prosecute those who planned and broke in, but to frame as a serious attempt to overthrow an election is too much from what was shown.

A year of BLM riots and murders financially and morally supported by democrats, even the vice ****ing President, and the democrats have successfully changed the narrative to Jan 6th. Even in here the topic has been steered to Jan 6th and NO ONE is talking about the incitement committed all year by democrat politicians. Amazing.

Wangchung said:

---

A year of BLM riots and murders financially and morally supported by democrats, even the vice ****ing President, and the democrats have successfully changed the narrative to Jan 6th. Even in here the topic has been steered to Jan 6th and NO ONE is talking about the incitement committed all year by democrat politicians. Amazing.

---

It takes abject fools to buy this bull chit, but there are plenty of leftist sheep here. Sam and Oso and Quash are great examples.

I happen to enjoy reading their posts, even if I don't agree with many things they write. They aren't to blame anyway, it's the narrative chosen by every media outlet thanks to the fodder put up by the democrat commission, so of course that plays out here. It's just amazing to me how effective the efforts have been. Midterms can't get here soon enough.

Wangchung said:

---

A year of BLM riots and murders financially and morally supported by democrats, even the vice ****ing President, and the democrats have successfully changed the narrative to Jan 6th. Even in here the topic has been steered to Jan 6th and NO ONE is talking about the incitement committed all year by democrat politicians. Amazing.

---

Also, don't forget about the Bernie Bro that engaged in insurrection when he tried to kill all the Republican senators when they were practicing for a baseball game.

Perhaps the Republicans need to mark every June 14th as a time to mourn, read the names of those that were shot and talk about how it was the greatest threat to democracy this country has ever faced. I'm kind of being serious. The dems, from now on will jump the shark considering the rowdy tourists on Jan 6th and try to make it worse than Pearl Harbor or 9/11. The dems in office know it's ridiculous to do it, but the over emotional and weak minded supporters will buy hook line and sinker. Time for Repubs to beat the dems at their own game.

Wangchung said:

---

A year of BLM riots and murders financially and morally supported by democrats, even the vice ****ing President, and the democrats have successfully changed the narrative to Jan 6th. Even in here the topic has been steered to Jan 6th and NO ONE is talking about the incitement committed all year by democrat politicians. Amazing.

---

These were almost exactly my thoughts a year ago, except that instead of the Democrats I would put it mostly on Trump and the Republicans. There's no question that we had the moral high ground on this issue after the 2020 riots. All we had to do was accept the legitimate results of the election and not violently attack the capital. But that was too much to ask of some people, and to make matters worse, many are still tying themselves in knots to defend the behavior and make martyrs of those who participated. That may do even more damage to the party in the long run.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

A year of BLM riots and murders financially and morally supported by democrats, even the vice ****ing President, and the democrats have successfully changed the narrative to Jan 6th. Even in here the topic has been steered to Jan 6th and NO ONE is talking about the incitement committed all year by democrat politicians. Amazing.

---

These were almost exactly my thoughts a year ago, except that instead of the Democrats I would put it mostly on Trump and the Republicans. There's no question that we had the moral high ground on this issue after the 2020 riots. All we had to do was accept the legitimate results of the election and not violently attack the capital. But that was too much to ask of some people, and to make matters worse, many are still tying themselves in knots to defend the behavior and make martyrs of those who participated. That may do even more damage to the party in the long run.

---

The only stooges playing mental gymnastics are the idiots trying to convince people that what happened last year at the Capitol was something that it wasn't.

So what are you going to say when the dems don't accept the results of the '22 midterms? They are already trying to lay a foundation for them to call the results into question.

I guess for many, it's okay for leftists not to accept the results of an election and then burn cities and vandalize private and public property but not okay when righties don't accept the results of an election then mostly peacefully protest and trespass on federal property.

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

What are the Oathkeepers? I heard they are a "far-right" group ... but from people that consider public school parents domestic terrorists.

In fairness to the guy, I think these hardcore gun guys do a lot of ad hoc ammo sales. I think last year there was some terrorism scare in Denver that turned out to be a guy selling guns. My point is that's not (pun intended) a smoking gun.

---

Do you think they took ammo to DC to sell it?

---

I don't have an opinion. . Without evidence motive is difficult to prove. Do you have evidence that clarifies their motive or intent?

---

We only know what the indictment alleges. Do you believe this is all the feds have?

---

Do you think if a kid shoplifts he should be charged with armed robbery because he has a gun at his house? No
Should people caught speeding be charged with DUI if they have a fridge full of beer at home? No

---

If people buy and transport weapons to DC in order to keep a losing candidate as POTUS, that is insurrection not shoplifting.

If people cache weapons nearby with the idea of bringing them to the Capitol to violently prevent the counting of the Electoral Votes, that's insurrection, not DUI.

---

no it isnt.. its a plan to commit insurrection. For it to be insurection, you actually have to bring the weapons to the capital.

that plan was not enacted because the weapons never left the store house(hotel room). That is why you have conspiracy charges and not insurrection charges.

Its ok to admit it, we already know..

---

Nobody withdrew from the conspiracy or changed their minds about inserting Trump into the presidency.

---

I must have missed the part where they said that Trump was now the President and Biden not. I recall Pence saying it was certified and power peacefully changed on Jan 20th. O guess I missed that take over part.

---

It's in the indictment

---

Wrong answer. The indictment is written by the prosecute. They can prosecute for intent, planning or even conspiracy, but what actually happened was the peaceful transfer of power. That is a fact. Pence may have saved them from what you describe, but you can't get away from what actually happened. All I know is I saw a bunch of clowns taking selfies, any other charges need to be proven. Demonstration out of control? Yup. Prosecute those that went in the Capitol, no problem. The rest? I am still not sure.

---

An unsuccessful attempt is still an attempt.
Must be proven brd

---

A bunch of idiots conspiring is one thing, happens all the time. Idiots are idiots. Jan 6th did not look like a a serious insurrection more like a comicom with selfies convention. Maybe you are talking about another group and another plot. I agree prosecute those who planned and broke in, but to frame as a serious attempt to overthrow an election is too much from what was shown.

---

They have video and text messages

Oath Keepers Cached Weapons for Jan. 6 Capitol Attack, Prosecutors Say
Cartloads of arms and ammo were at ready at a Comfort Inn in Virginia suburbs, according to indictment against members of far-right militia group
Prosecutors released an image from hotel surveillance footage they said shows Edward Vallejo, wearing a cap, wheeling in bins of ammunition and supplies the day before the Capitol riot last year.

WASHINGTONThe right-wing Oath Keepers militia group was prepared to move a stash of firearms and equipment from a Virginia hotel to rioters on Jan. 6, federal prosecutors said, painting the most detailed portrait yet of the planning the group's members allegedly undertook as they tried to stop the certification of President Joe Biden's 2020 election win.
Edward Vallejo, a 63-year-old Arizona man arrested last week on seditious-conspiracy and other charges, worked with others to coordinate what they called "quick reaction forces" stationed at a Comfort Inn in Arlington, Va., prosecutors said.
The teams, armed with weapons, ammunition and "essential supplies to last 30 days," awaited direction on the day of the riot and ultimately didn't need to deliver the materials since the group successfully breached the U.S. Capitol without them, the prosecutors said, urging a judge to detain Mr. Vallejo before his trial. A federal judge is scheduled to consider the request Thursday afternoon.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

A year of BLM riots and murders financially and morally supported by democrats, even the vice ****ing President, and the democrats have successfully changed the narrative to Jan 6th. Even in here the topic has been steered to Jan 6th and NO ONE is talking about the incitement committed all year by democrat politicians. Amazing.

---

These were almost exactly my thoughts a year ago, except that instead of the Democrats I would put it mostly on Trump and the Republicans. There's no question that we had the moral high ground on this issue after the 2020 riots. All we had to do was accept the legitimate results of the election and not violently attack the capital. But that was too much to ask of some people, and to make matters worse, many are still tying themselves in knots to defend the behavior and make martyrs of those who participated. That may do even more damage to the party in the long run.

---

The only stooges playing mental gymnastics are the idiots trying to convince people that what happened last year at the Capitol was something that it wasn't.

So what are you going to say when the dems don't accept the results of the '22 midterms? They are already trying to lay a foundation for them to call the results into question.

I guess for many, it's okay for leftists not to accept the results of an election and then burn cities and vandalize private and public property but not okay when righties don't accept the results of an election then mostly peacefully protest and trespass on federal property.

---

Democrats and the mainstream media were ridiculed for using the phrase "mostly peaceful protest," and with good reason. When you find yourself using it unironically, you know it's time to stop and think about what you're doing and whether you're getting carried away by ideology.

I have always said that Trump had a right to question the election results through legitimate means, i.e. through the courts. If Democrats have concerns about 2022, they're free to do the same.

---

Plenty of people have stated that because Trump even questioned the results, it was a threat to democracy. Those same people are now laying the foundation for they themselves to question the results... speaking of irony

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

What are the Oathkeepers? I heard they are a "far-right" group ... but from people that consider public school parents domestic terrorists.

In fairness to the guy, I think these hardcore gun guys do a lot of ad hoc ammo sales. I think last year there was some terrorism scare in Denver that turned out to be a guy selling guns. My point is that's not (pun intended) a smoking gun.

---

Do you think they took ammo to DC to sell it?

---

I don't have an opinion. . Without evidence motive is difficult to prove. Do you have evidence that clarifies their motive or intent?

---

We only know what the indictment alleges. Do you believe this is all the feds have?

---

Do you think if a kid shoplifts he should be charged with armed robbery because he has a gun at his house? No
Should people caught speeding be charged with DUI if they have a fridge full of beer at home? No

---

If people buy and transport weapons to DC in order to keep a losing candidate as POTUS, that is insurrection not shoplifting.

If people cache weapons nearby with the idea of bringing them to the Capitol to violently prevent the counting of the Electoral Votes, that's insurrection, not DUI.

---

no it isnt.. its a plan to commit insurrection. For it to be insurection, you actually have to bring the weapons to the capital.

that plan was not enacted because the weapons never left the store house(hotel room). That is why you have conspiracy charges and not insurrection charges.

Its ok to admit it, we already know..

---

Nobody withdrew from the conspiracy or changed their minds about inserting Trump into the presidency.

---

I must have missed the part where they said that Trump was now the President and Biden not. I recall Pence saying it was certified and power peacefully changed on Jan 20th. O guess I missed that take over part.

---

It's in the indictment

---

Wrong answer. The indictment is written by the prosecute. They can prosecute for intent, planning or even conspiracy, but what actually happened was the peaceful transfer of power. That is a fact. Pence may have saved them from what you describe, but you can't get away from what actually happened. All I know is I saw a bunch of clowns taking selfies, any other charges need to be proven. Demonstration out of control? Yup. Prosecute those that went in the Capitol, no problem. The rest? I am still not sure.

---

An unsuccessful attempt is still an attempt.
Must be proven brd

---

A bunch of idiots conspiring is one thing, happens all the time. Idiots are idiots. Jan 6th did not look like a a serious insurrection more like a comicom with selfies convention. Maybe you are talking about another group and another plot. I agree prosecute those who planned and broke in, but to frame as a serious attempt to overthrow an election is too much from what was shown.

---

They have video and text messages

Oath Keepers Cached Weapons for Jan. 6 Capitol Attack, Prosecutors Say
Cartloads of arms and ammo were at ready at a Comfort Inn in Virginia suburbs, according to indictment against members of far-right militia group
Prosecutors released an image from hotel surveillance footage they said shows Edward Vallejo, wearing a cap, wheeling in bins of ammunition and supplies the day before the Capitol riot last year.

WASHINGTONThe right-wing Oath Keepers militia group was prepared to move a stash of firearms and equipment from a Virginia hotel to rioters on Jan. 6, federal prosecutors said, painting the most detailed portrait yet of the planning the group's members allegedly undertook as they tried to stop the certification of President Joe Biden's 2020 election win.
Edward Vallejo, a 63-year-old Arizona man arrested last week on seditious-conspiracy and other charges, worked with others to coordinate what they called "quick reaction forces" stationed at a Comfort Inn in Arlington, Va., prosecutors said.
The teams, armed with weapons, ammunition and "essential supplies to last 30 days," awaited direction on the day of the riot and ultimately didn't need to deliver the materials since the group successfully breached the U.S. Capitol without them, the prosecutors said, urging a judge to detain Mr. Vallejo before his trial. A federal judge is scheduled to consider the request Thursday afternoon.

---

Bold all the words you want. Those idiots are still being charged with conspiracy, you know... conspiracy because they actually didn't go through with the act.

Oh yeah, I forgot, you believe that if someone just thinks about doing something that as good as actually doing it.

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

A year of BLM riots and murders financially and morally supported by democrats, even the vice ****ing President, and the democrats have successfully changed the narrative to Jan 6th. Even in here the topic has been steered to Jan 6th and NO ONE is talking about the incitement committed all year by democrat politicians. Amazing.

---

These were almost exactly my thoughts a year ago, except that instead of the Democrats I would put it mostly on Trump and the Republicans. There's no question that we had the moral high ground on this issue after the 2020 riots. All we had to do was accept the legitimate results of the election and not violently attack the capital. But that was too much to ask of some people, and to make matters worse, many are still tying themselves in knots to defend the behavior and make martyrs of those who participated. That may do even more damage to the party in the long run.

---

The only stooges playing mental gymnastics are the idiots trying to convince people that what happened last year at the Capitol was something that it wasn't.

So what are you going to say when the dems don't accept the results of the '22 midterms? They are already trying to lay a foundation for them to call the results into question.

I guess for many, it's okay for leftists not to accept the results of an election and then burn cities and vandalize private and public property but not okay when righties don't accept the results of an election then mostly peacefully protest and trespass on federal property.

---

Democrats and the mainstream media were ridiculed for using the phrase "mostly peaceful protest," and with good reason. When you find yourself using it unironically, you know it's time to stop and think about what you're doing and whether you're getting carried away by ideology.

I have always said that Trump had a right to question the election results through legitimate means, i.e. through the courts. If Democrats have concerns about 2022, they're free to do the same.

---

Plenty of people have stated that because Trump even questioned the results, it was a threat to democracy. Those same people are now laying the foundation for they themselves to question the results... speaking of irony

---

It depends on what you mean by questioning. Raising real issues in good faith is fine. Telling lies in public that you would never get away with in court, to the point where it undermines faith in democracy and leads to violence, yes, that is a threat.

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

A year of BLM riots and murders financially and morally supported by democrats, even the vice ****ing President, and the democrats have successfully changed the narrative to Jan 6th. Even in here the topic has been steered to Jan 6th and NO ONE is talking about the incitement committed all year by democrat politicians. Amazing.

---

These were almost exactly my thoughts a year ago, except that instead of the Democrats I would put it mostly on Trump and the Republicans. There's no question that we had the moral high ground on this issue after the 2020 riots. All we had to do was accept the legitimate results of the election and not violently attack the capital. But that was too much to ask of some people, and to make matters worse, many are still tying themselves in knots to defend the behavior and make martyrs of those who participated. That may do even more damage to the party in the long run.

---

The only stooges playing mental gymnastics are the idiots trying to convince people that what happened last year at the Capitol was something that it wasn't.

So what are you going to say when the dems don't accept the results of the '22 midterms? They are already trying to lay a foundation for them to call the results into question.

I guess for many, it's okay for leftists not to accept the results of an election and then burn cities and vandalize private and public property but not okay when righties don't accept the results of an election then mostly peacefully protest and trespass on federal property.

---

Democrats and the mainstream media were ridiculed for using the phrase "mostly peaceful protest," and with good reason. When you find yourself using it unironically, you know it's time to stop and think about what you're doing and whether you're getting carried away by ideology.

I have always said that Trump had a right to question the election results through legitimate means, i.e. through the courts. If Democrats have concerns about 2022, they're free to do the same.

---

Plenty of people have stated that because Trump even questioned the results, it was a threat to democracy. Those same people are now laying the foundation for they themselves to question the results... speaking of irony

---

It depends on what you mean by questioning. Raising real issues in good faith is fine. Telling lies in public that you would never get away with in court, to the point where it undermines faith in democracy and leads to violence, yes, that is a threat.

---

Like lying about Russian collision for instance? And commissioning a fake dossier? All in an effort to try and paint Trump as an illegitimate president?

Or how about back in 2016 when electors were threatened with death if they cast their vote for Trump.

Leftists are already setting the stage to try and cast doubt on the midterms should Republicans win. If dems lose seats and Republicans take a majority, expect violence.

---

I'm not interested in the whatabout game, but sure. Kind of like that.

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

Before the Arbery murder trial we learned about the allegations and evidence from the indictment and other sources. We started to form an opinion. The presumption of innocence doesn't mean you and I can't discuss it and share opinions.

Before Rittenhouse went to trial, we learned about the allegations and evidence and we started forming an opinion. We shared our opinions on this board and the presumption of innocence doesn't mean we must be silent.

We are learning about the evidence concerning those indicted for sedition. We are sharing opinions.

You didn't answer my questions, Oso.

Too hard?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

---

Presumption of innocence is a key attribute of a fair media too. Remember what the media did to Richard Jewell, for example?

It sucks for people to have to temper their accusations, but there's a vital difference between clearly stating an opinion and presenting a claim as if it were established fact.

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

What are the Oathkeepers? I heard they are a "far-right" group ... but from people that consider public school parents domestic terrorists.

In fairness to the guy, I think these hardcore gun guys do a lot of ad hoc ammo sales. I think last year there was some terrorism scare in Denver that turned out to be a guy selling guns. My point is that's not (pun intended) a smoking gun.

---

Do you think they took ammo to DC to sell it?

---

I don't have an opinion. . Without evidence motive is difficult to prove. Do you have evidence that clarifies their motive or intent?

---

We only know what the indictment alleges. Do you believe this is all the feds have?

---

Do you think if a kid shoplifts he should be charged with armed robbery because he has a gun at his house? No
Should people caught speeding be charged with DUI if they have a fridge full of beer at home? No

---

If people buy and transport weapons to DC in order to keep a losing candidate as POTUS, that is insurrection not shoplifting.

If people cache weapons nearby with the idea of bringing them to the Capitol to violently prevent the counting of the Electoral Votes, that's insurrection, not DUI.

---

Are you favor of charging people with crimes they might have committed? Every indictment is an allegation against a person for crimes they have committed.
I think you missed the point. So if a person thinks about killing someone but doesn't, should she be charged with murder? Conspiracy to commit murder

If they brought the guns for an insurrection, why didn't they bring them to the planned insurrection? The master mind did not call them to the Capitol. The conspirators are alleged to have brought weapons for the purpose of keeping Trump in office

---

The conspirators were on call with weapons they brought to DC area

---

So you want to charge and try people for things they didn't do?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

---

Presumption of innocence is a key attribute of a fair media too. Remember what the media did to Richard Jewell, for example?

It sucks for people to have to temper their accusations, but there's a vital difference between clearly stating an opinion and presenting a claim as if it were established fact.

---

I love how leftists will continually preach that words matter, but then ignore their own.

While presumed innocent until proven guilty is of the courts, the leftists forget that many of these cases are tried in the media and then the court of public opinion before they even reached a judge and jury. Many times, since the guilt or innocence has been determined outside the legal system, it can be difficult for anyone on a jury to be unbiased or unduly influenced.

Now, many times, based on my research and facts, I'll often decide whether I believe someone is innocent or guilty before I watch a trial. No better than the leftists. But then again, I don't preach that words matter like so many of these snowflakes do. All the time.

Leftists love doing what they accuse others of doing and then try to pass it off as it doesn't matter. ****ing ****** bags.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

What are the Oathkeepers? I heard they are a "far-right" group ... but from people that consider public school parents domestic terrorists.

In fairness to the guy, I think these hardcore gun guys do a lot of ad hoc ammo sales. I think last year there was some terrorism scare in Denver that turned out to be a guy selling guns. My point is that's not (pun intended) a smoking gun.

---

Do you think they took ammo to DC to sell it?

---

I don't have an opinion. . Without evidence motive is difficult to prove. Do you have evidence that clarifies their motive or intent?

---

We only know what the indictment alleges. Do you believe this is all the feds have?

---

Do you think if a kid shoplifts he should be charged with armed robbery because he has a gun at his house? No
Should people caught speeding be charged with DUI if they have a fridge full of beer at home? No

---

If people buy and transport weapons to DC in order to keep a losing candidate as POTUS, that is insurrection not shoplifting.

If people cache weapons nearby with the idea of bringing them to the Capitol to violently prevent the counting of the Electoral Votes, that's insurrection, not DUI.

---

Are you favor of charging people with crimes they might have committed? Every indictment is an allegation against a person for crimes they have committed.
I think you missed the point. So if a person thinks about killing someone but doesn't, should she be charged with murder? Conspiracy to commit murder

If they brought the guns for an insurrection, why didn't they bring them to the planned insurrection? The master mind did not call them to the Capitol. The conspirators are alleged to have brought weapons for the purpose of keeping Trump in office

---

The conspirators were on call with weapons they brought to DC area

---

So you want to charge and try people for things they didn't do?

---

I don't think he wants to charge and try anyone. He just wants them locked up indefinitely. As least that's the way he comes across.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

---

Presumption of innocence is a key attribute of a fair media too. Remember what the media did to Richard Jewell, for example?

It sucks for people to have to temper their accusations, but there's a vital difference between clearly stating an opinion and presenting a claim as if it were established fact.

---

We're not professional media. We could begin every sentence with "the government alleges that...," but what would be the point? It's not how people talk. Everyone understands that the facts may or may not be disputed in court.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

---

you dont think this is playing out all over the country and will create bias on the jury? We may not be on that jury but those press releases will create bias, they are written that way

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam, Oso, you seem to have missed it before, so I am posting it again:

We agree the charges are not proven at this time, then. Do you agree with the presumption of innocence at this stage? If yes, then why use language implying guilt has already been established?

---

The presumption of innocence is a presumption of the legal system. Nothing we say here has any effect on it.

---

you dont think this is playing out all over the country and will create bias on the jury? We may not be on that jury but those press releases will create bias, they are written that way

---

They're just reporting the allegations. They don't seem to be written any differently than in any other case.