Oldbear83 said:

---

You didn't answer my questions, Oso.

Too hard?

---

Presumption of innocence applies. So does the First Amendment. We are sharing opinions

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

---

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

---

So, you think they are guilty of a crime?

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?

---

No. Do you want them not prosecuted for crimes they may have committed?

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

So you're admitting you have no interest in objective discussion. You just want to make an accusation and pretend it's fact.

We already knew that, Sam.

But just in case there is an adult deep inside, desperately trying to get out and speak for Sam, if we assume the weapons were gathered, why were they not ever used? Why did they not ever get within miles of the Capitol? Suppose the men accused started then changed their minds?

Or suppose someone like Ray Epps was the one behind the idea to bring weapons to the protest, and the whole thing started as an FBI plant? We know damn well the feds had instigators involved with the whole event.

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

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

---

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

---

So, you think they are guilty of a crime?

---

I see evidence both ways. But unlike many, I will wait for the case to play out before burning the accused witches.

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

---

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

---

So, you think they are guilty of a crime?

---

he thinks they've committed action that could lead to criminal charges

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

So you're admitting you have no interest in objective discussion. You just want to make an accusation and pretend it's fact.

We already knew that, Sam.

But just in case there is an adult deep inside, desperately trying to get out and speak for Sam, if we assume the weapons were gathered, why were they not ever used? Why did they not ever get within miles of the Capitol? Suppose the men accused started then changed their minds?

Or suppose someone like Ray Epps was the one behind the idea to bring weapons to the protest, and the whole thing started as an FBI plant? We know damn well the feds had instigators involved with the whole event.

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

What you're doing isn't "objective discussion." You're making a case just like the rest of us, with facts not yet proven in court, but without admitting that's what you're doing or allowing others to do the same. It's not interesting.

Here's a novel idea: if you have evidence contrary to what's in the indictment, then say so.

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

Self-serving excuses from Sam "Brownshirt" Lowry.

What a fall from the former Sam.

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

---

Only if you discuss facts that tend to exonerate the defendants. Facts, or theories, or conjecture...pretty much anything except what's in the record. It's called being objective.

Cool tantrum, Sam.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

---

I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...

I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

---

I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...

I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.

---

If so, makes more of a case for a mental evaluation if they thought that they were going to alter an election. Besides showing their displeasure with the system, there was and is no realistic shot of altering an election in th US.

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

---

I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...

I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.

---

The real question is why Oldbear and others are so obsessed with these guys. Everyone says the rioters are extremists, they aren't typical Trump voters, they don't represent us, etc. But hell if we won't defend their honor and guard them against all accusers, even on the internet! And definitely punish the guilty, but also...it was all the FBI's fault.

It makes no sense.

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

---

I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...

I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.

---

OK. So what do you know apart from the indictment? You do know those are written from a very hostile POV and do not represent the whole sum of facts.

It's not so much about guarding them as it is guarding truth and the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Everything about this reeks of partisan gamesmanship so either we discuss this the way we view justice or we just assume whatever we want to and come up with our own versions of fairness and law.

Sam: "Everyone says the rioters are extremists"

Sorry Sam but you, Oso and the Wild Wicked Left do not speak for "everyone"

Certainly I agree that a minority of the people in the protest went to the Capitol, and a minority of those who went to the Capitol committed crimes by breaking into the Capitol.

But even those idiots did not bring guns or weapons that would be consistent with an attempt to attack government officials, there is no evidence I am aware of that there was ever an actual effort to commit anything to support the charges you and others have treated as your personal Gospel.

I am following the facts, not the noise.

Wangchung said:

---

It's not so much about guarding them as it is guarding truth and the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Everything about this reeks of partisan gamesmanship so either we discuss this the way we view justice or we just assume whatever we want to and come up with our own versions of fairness and law.

---

Maybe, but in 2020 this was the forum where rioters didn't even deserve a trial, much less a fair one. They needed to be shot on sight.

Several posters have expressed the fear that accusing the Capitol rioters of sedition or insurrection could lead to a general crackdown on conservatives. That's what doesn't make sense to me. You want to distance yourself from the mob, so you...take their side? And these are the same posters who always call on the left to distance themselves from their extremists.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "Everyone says the rioters are extremists"

Sorry Sam but you, Oso and the Wild Wicked Left do not speak for "everyone"

Certainly I agree that a minority of the people in the protest went to the Capitol, and a minority of those who went to the Capitol committed crimes by breaking into the Capitol.

But even those idiots did not bring guns or weapons that would be consistent with an attempt to attack government officials, there is no evidence I am aware of that there was ever an actual effort to commit anything to support the charges you and others have treated as your personal Gospel.

I am following the facts, not the noise.

---

LOL

Sam: "You want to distance yourself from the mob, so you...take their side?"

The only way you could reach that conclusion is by ignoring 75% of what I actually wrote.

But it is interesting that you finally brought up the 2020 summer riots. A simple count of the dead and the businesses destroyed shows which was the greater danger to the nation.

I would say I would abide by the trial results, were so many of the summer rioters not simply fortunate enough to see charges dismissed outright, something we certainly have not seen with the January 6 defendants.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "You want to distance yourself from the mob, so you...take their side?"

The only way you could reach that conclusion is by ignoring 75% of what I actually wrote.

But it is interesting that you finally brought up the 2020 summer riots. A simple count of the dead and the businesses destroyed shows which was the greater danger to the nation.

I would say I would abide by the trial results, were so many of the summer rioters not simply fortunate enough to see charges dismissed outright, something we certainly have not seen with the January 6 defendants.

---

I don't disagree and they should have prosecuted those that broke laws. But, it is not relevant to the Jan 6th demonstration. What did or didn't happen to the other riots doesn't change the particulars of the Jan 6th people.

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "You want to distance yourself from the mob, so you...take their side?"

The only way you could reach that conclusion is by ignoring 75% of what I actually wrote.

But it is interesting that you finally brought up the 2020 summer riots. A simple count of the dead and the businesses destroyed shows which was the greater danger to the nation.

I would say I would abide by the trial results, were so many of the summer rioters not simply fortunate enough to see charges dismissed outright, something we certainly have not seen with the January 6 defendants.

---

I don't disagree and they should have prosecuted those that broke laws. But, it is not relevant to the Jan 6th demonstration. What did or didn't happen to the other riots doesn't change the particulars of the Jan 6th people.

---

It is relevant because it demonstrates the media and political bias present in both affairs.

What concerns me most is not whether some idiot who broke the law gets a harsher punishment than he expects. It's the use of the law to punish one political orientation while excusing the other, and the abandoning of accurate description of what happened.

Certainly there were laws broken on January 6, and the people responsible must answer for that. But there is absolutely no reason to believe an actual attempt to overthrow the election, let alone the federal government.

Beyond that, the hysteria among some here borders on madness.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

It's not so much about guarding them as it is guarding truth and the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Everything about this reeks of partisan gamesmanship so either we discuss this the way we view justice or we just assume whatever we want to and come up with our own versions of fairness and law.

---

Maybe, but in 2020 this was the same forum where rioters didn't even deserve a trial, much less a fair one. They needed to be shot on sight.

Several posters have expressed the fear that accusing the Capitol rioters of sedition or insurrection could lead to a general crackdown on conservatives. That's what doesn't make sense to me. You want to distance yourself from the mob, so you...take their side? And these are the same posters who always call on the left to distance themselves from their extremists.

---

Yes, the people burning down cities, looting and murdering citizens and police should have been shot on sight if they didn't immediately surrender when caught. Is someone kicking a man in the head or shooting at cops the same as the Q shaman? No. No honest person would claim that. No honest person would claim that Jan 6th was worse than the year of BLM riots or even comparable to 9/11, Pearl Harbor or the holocaust… but they did, didn't they?
Knowing that, the fear is that those democrats levying all those charges will use the power their charges give them to destroy political opponents, digging through personal emails and leaking them to the leftist press. And they did. (Read those last three words one more time)
There is absolutely no denying that.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-rep-jim-jordan-confirms-january-6-panel-released-text-message-he-sent-to-meadows/ar-AARReka

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

It's not so much about guarding them as it is guarding truth and the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Everything about this reeks of partisan gamesmanship so either we discuss this the way we view justice or we just assume whatever we want to and come up with our own versions of fairness and law.

---

Maybe, but in 2020 this was the same forum where rioters didn't even deserve a trial, much less a fair one. They needed to be shot on sight.

Several posters have expressed the fear that accusing the Capitol rioters of sedition or insurrection could lead to a general crackdown on conservatives. That's what doesn't make sense to me. You want to distance yourself from the mob, so you...take their side? And these are the same posters who always call on the left to distance themselves from their extremists.

---

Yes, the people burning down cities, looting and murdering citizens and police should have been shot on sight if they didn't immediately surrender when caught. Is someone kicking a man in the head or shooting at cops the same as the Q shaman? No. No honest person would claim that. No honest person would claim that Jan 6th was worse than the year of BLM riots or even comparable to 9/11, Pearl Harbor or the holocaust… but they did, didn't they?
Knowing that, the fear is that those democrats levying all those charges will use the power their charges give them to destroy political opponents, digging through personal emails and leaking them to the leftist press. And they did. (Read those last three words one more time)
There is absolutely no denying that.

---

I guess we see the seriousness of the event differently. There was plenty of kicking going on, and worse.

There was kicking and hitting and hurt police outside the Whitehouse when Trump was in office, too. The President of the nation had to be ushered into a bunker due to the violence. No panel to investigate. No lives ruined of people that were merely there watching. No solitary confinement sans trial. No democrat emails and texts leaked. Nada

Wangchung said:

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-rep-jim-jordan-confirms-january-6-panel-released-text-message-he-sent-to-meadows/ar-AARReka

---

Jordan suffered no injustice. He was embarrassed and rightly so. It's a common hazard of investigations.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-rep-jim-jordan-confirms-january-6-panel-released-text-message-he-sent-to-meadows/ar-AARReka

---

Jordan suffered no injustice. He was embarrassed and rightly so. It's a common hazard of investigations.

---

Yes, how dare he and the others expect privacy when democrats are on a witch hunt. Now you know the problem most people have with this charade. It isn't a fear that the power gained by these overblown charges will be abused by democrats, it's the knowledge that they ARE abusing them.

Wangchung said:

---

There was kicking and hitting and hurt police outside the Whitehouse when Trump was in office, too. The President of the nation had to be ushered into a bunker due to the violence. No panel to investigate. No lives ruined of people that were merely there watching. No solitary confinement sans trial. No democrat emails and texts leaked. Nada

---

I don't know that anyone's life has been ruined just for watching. As for investigation, 1/6 is being investigated because of apparent failures by federal law enforcement and the possibility of collusion or incitement by government officials. I'm not sure what the basis for a congressional investigation of the White House incident would be. Trump was accused of acting too harshly, but that charge was groundless. Do you think Congress should have pursued it?

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-rep-jim-jordan-confirms-january-6-panel-released-text-message-he-sent-to-meadows/ar-AARReka

---

Jordan suffered no injustice. He was embarrassed and rightly so. It's a common hazard of investigations.

---

Yes, how dare he and the others expect privacy when democrats are on a witch hunt. Now you know the problem most people have with this charade. It isn't a fear that the power gained by these overblown charges will be abused by democrats, it's the knowledge that they ARE abusing them.

---

Congress investigates things all the time. Jordan has the same expectation that anyone else has when their communications are evidence. I don't see how that's an abuse.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

There was kicking and hitting and hurt police outside the Whitehouse when Trump was in office, too. The President of the nation had to be ushered into a bunker due to the violence. No panel to investigate. No lives ruined of people that were merely there watching. No solitary confinement sans trial. No democrat emails and texts leaked. Nada

---

I don't know that anyone's life has been ruined just for watching. As for investigation, 1/6 is being investigated because of apparent failures by federal law enforcement and the possibility of collusion or incitement by government officials. I'm not sure what the basis for a congressional investigation of the White House incident would be. Trump was accused of acting too harshly, but that charge was groundless. Do you think Congress should have pursued it?

---

Kamala Harris was paying the bail of the rioters. Many democrat politicians were outright supporting and inciting the rioters. Absolutely their lives should have been turned upside down to find out who they were community organizing with to facilitate the nationwide riots, as well as the ones staged at the White House. The media who spread lies should have had their texts and emails revealed to the world, too. Of course I'm exaggerating a bit on the proper response, only applying the same actions by democrats to Jan 6th to their year of riots and murders and taking over federal buildings and land. What you are missing is these emails were not merely looked into, THEY WERE LEAKED TO THE PRESS. Leaking to the press is NOT part of our judicial process, not even if you think their private messages deserved derision.

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

There was kicking and hitting and hurt police outside the Whitehouse when Trump was in office, too. The President of the nation had to be ushered into a bunker due to the violence. No panel to investigate. No lives ruined of people that were merely there watching. No solitary confinement sans trial. No democrat emails and texts leaked. Nada

---

I don't know that anyone's life has been ruined just for watching. As for investigation, 1/6 is being investigated because of apparent failures by federal law enforcement and the possibility of collusion or incitement by government officials. I'm not sure what the basis for a congressional investigation of the White House incident would be. Trump was accused of acting too harshly, but that charge was groundless. Do you think Congress should have pursued it?

---

Kamala Harris was paying the bail of the rioters. Many democrat politicians were outright supporting and inciting the rioters. Absolutely their lives should have been turned upside down to find out who they were community organizing with to facilitate the nationwide riots, as well as the ones staged at the White House. The media who spread lies should have had their texts and emails revealed to the world, too. Of course I'm exaggerating a bit on the proper response, only applying the same actions by democrats to Jan 6th to their year of riots and murders and taking over federal buildings and land. What you are missing is these emails were not merely looked into, THEY WERE LEAKED TO THE PRESS. Leaking to the press is NOT part of our judicial process, not even if you think their private messages deserved derision.

---

I agree with you up to a point. Kamala and other Democrat politicians were a disgrace. BLM and Antifa should have been thoroughly investigated like the terrorist organizations that they are. I'm sure many on the left felt they stood to lose politically if they took a stand against their "allies," just as many on the right do today. But I don't think either party would hurt itself by being honest. It would be better for them and for the country.

The fact we keep discussing the Reichstag Fire shows it's working, unfortunately. It's in-American to distribute justice based on political party.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

In the end, the facts will play out, and if guilty those men will face the full consequences of their actions. But it's a poor excuse to sell an extreme interpretation, essentially assuming everything bad and nothing good, just because you're not a lawyer or work for a network. We also know damn well CNN and ABC/CBS/NBC have no interest in a fair hearing, and as 4th and Inches noted, the media has swung public opinion and influenced juries before now.

---

May we discuss on this board? May news networks report on it? Are we permitted to gather facts and begin to draw conclusions?

As I remember your posting, you were quite sure Rittenhouse was not guilty and were vocal about it. Weren't you afraid your posts might sway the jury?

---

I was clear that my opinion was that Rittenhouse was guilty. I was afraid - with reason - that the media hostile to Rittenhouse would influence the jury.

And you have to see that news networks are making no effort to be objective. The use of 'insurrection' alone demonstrates bias.

Again, come out and say if you think they are guilty. But just maybe you can be open to reasonable doubt, as I raised in a post just a few minutes ago.

Those torches will burn witches just fine a month from now as they will now. But maybe stop and consider alternatives to your assumptions.

---

I guess since it's alright for you to discuss ...

I read the indictment. Feds have disclosed they have videos and text messages of the defendants conspiring to keep Biden from being declared the Electoral College winner. From reading the indictment, it appears to me there are witnesses who were a part of the conspiracy who are witnesses for the prosecution.

---

OK. So what do you know apart from the indictment? You do know those are written from a very hostile POV and do not represent the whole sum of facts.

---

OK. What do you know?