Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So being escorted around on a guided tour is a crime and inciting a riot isn't?

Got it.

---

guided tour.???? are you freaking nuts? Have you not seen the video? Dude, you are insufferable and brainwashed.

---

You must not have seen the video, JR. The Shaman was most definitely escorted around by multiple officers%85.officers opened doorways for him%85..etc.

---

Step away from the Shaman's shrooms and peyote! It is bad for you! clouds your brain!

---

Like I said, you are talking about a video you obviously did not see. The officers are on tape, for minutes helping him get where he wanted to go.....checking doors, taking him to alternative entrances to circumvent locked doors, actually holding the doors open for him to walk thru. Doesn't make what the shaman did legal, but does vaporize the idea that there was an insurrection going on.

The insurrection narrative is dead as a doornail, JR. You can keep sputtering about it if it makes you feel better, but it it's documented crackpottery at this point.

---

Yet the insurrectionists keep going to prison.

Former Leader of Proud Boys Pleads Guilty to Seditious Conspiracy for Efforts to Stop Transfer of Power Following 2020 Presidential Election
Jeremy Bertino, 43, pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia to seditious conspiracy in connection with the Capitol breach.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-leader-proud-boys-pleads-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-efforts-stop-transfer-power

Leader of Proud Boys and Four Other Members Indicted in Federal Court For Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach
The defendants include Henry "Enrique" Tarrio, 38, of Miami, Florida, the former national chairman of the Proud Boys; Ethan Nordean, 31, of Auburn, Washington; Joseph Biggs, 38, of Ormond Beach, Florida; Zachary Rehl, 37, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Dominic Pezzola, 44, of Rochester, New York.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and

Proud Boys leader pleads guilty in insurrection case
Charles Donohoe of N Carolina

Jan. 6 Proud Boy rioter who approached Chuck Schumer sentenced to 4.5 years
Joshua Pruitt, The Washington Post reported, said at sentencing that he regretted participating in the insurrection.

---

they are going to jail for seditious conspiracy to commit insurection. There was no active attempt to gain control of the govt, only a plan..

They deserve jail for going as far as they did in the plan but it was still just a plan with no real action on the plan inside the capital building.

---

Yes the insurrection was pathetic with no real chance of lasting success. However it was a threat to the lives of Congress members and the Capitol police.

No real American wants democracy ended and a dictator installed, but had the insurrectionists somehow succeeded, thats what would have happened.

There are still morons here claiming the election was stolen. The zealots gonna zealot.

---

Again,

If even a few protestors that day had wanted to kill police or politicians%85.they could have brought semi-automatic weapons to the Capitol and have done it.

But they didn't.

---

Why is it that they needed to kill someone? They thought they could accomplish their goals without guns, most of them. If they had thrown out the will of the people, the certified vote, what would it matter if they used words or guns?

---

how could they have accomplished their goals? How could they have thrown out the will of the people?

Genuine question, I would like to know your thoughts on how they could've possibly succeeded at doing anything other than cause the delay that happened. The protest caused a delay just like the environmentalist who chain themselves to a tree getting bulldozed. Nothing more.

---

Incompetent people who attempt to rob a bank, even if they had no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempted bank robbery.

Incompetent people who attempt insurrection, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempted insurrection.

---

Incompetent bank robbers aren't guilty of trying to topple the financial system, even if the bank was the Federal Reserve.

---

Oso's hypothetical is about the nature of an attempt. Your response is about the nature of what's being attempted. You're refuting WR's point instead of Oso's.

---

Oso said nothing hypothetical. He said they attempted to overthrow the government.

---

The bank robbery hypo.

---

The bank robbery hypo doesn't work.

---

It illustrates the concept of criminal attempt.

---

No one is arguing Jan 6 wasn't criminal.

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

talking about robbing a bank and then standing in front of a bank is not attempted bank robbery.

---

There have been convictions for seditious conspiracy

---

all 2 of them! conspiracy means talking and planning, not doing..

You are always good for a laugh

---

No, in order to win a seditious-conspiracy case, prosecutors have to prove that two or more people conspired to "overthrow, put down or to destroy by force" the U.S. government or bring war against it, or that they plotted to use force to oppose the authority of the government or to block the execution of a law.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Defies reality because there was no real chance of success, or for some other reason? We've been back and forth on this for a couple of years now.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Defies reality because there was no real chance of success, or for some other reason? We've been back and forth on this for a couple of years now.

---

Because you don't overthrow our government by disrupting or even stopping that procedure. The problem is that you and so many others have projected some alternate reality of what happens next. It's your "what happens next" that has created this false projection.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Defies reality because there was no real chance of success, or for some other reason? We've been back and forth on this for a couple of years now.

---

Because you don't overthrow our government by disrupting or even stopping that procedure. The problem is that you and so many others have projected some alternate reality of what happens next. It's your "what happens next" that has created this false projection.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So being escorted around on a guided tour is a crime and inciting a riot isn't?

Got it.

---

guided tour.???? are you freaking nuts? Have you not seen the video? Dude, you are insufferable and brainwashed.

---

You must not have seen the video, JR. The Shaman was most definitely escorted around by multiple officers%85.officers opened doorways for him%85..etc.

---

Step away from the Shaman's shrooms and peyote! It is bad for you! clouds your brain!

---

Like I said, you are talking about a video you obviously did not see. The officers are on tape, for minutes helping him get where he wanted to go.....checking doors, taking him to alternative entrances to circumvent locked doors, actually holding the doors open for him to walk thru. Doesn't make what the shaman did legal, but does vaporize the idea that there was an insurrection going on.

The insurrection narrative is dead as a doornail, JR. You can keep sputtering about it if it makes you feel better, but it it's documented crackpottery at this point.

---

Yet the insurrectionists keep going to prison.

Former Leader of Proud Boys Pleads Guilty to Seditious Conspiracy for Efforts to Stop Transfer of Power Following 2020 Presidential Election
Jeremy Bertino, 43, pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia to seditious conspiracy in connection with the Capitol breach.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-leader-proud-boys-pleads-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-efforts-stop-transfer-power

Leader of Proud Boys and Four Other Members Indicted in Federal Court For Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach
The defendants include Henry "Enrique" Tarrio, 38, of Miami, Florida, the former national chairman of the Proud Boys; Ethan Nordean, 31, of Auburn, Washington; Joseph Biggs, 38, of Ormond Beach, Florida; Zachary Rehl, 37, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Dominic Pezzola, 44, of Rochester, New York.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and

Proud Boys leader pleads guilty in insurrection case
Charles Donohoe of N Carolina

Jan. 6 Proud Boy rioter who approached Chuck Schumer sentenced to 4.5 years
Joshua Pruitt, The Washington Post reported, said at sentencing that he regretted participating in the insurrection.

---

they are going to jail for seditious conspiracy to commit insurection. There was no active attempt to gain control of the govt, only a plan..

They deserve jail for going as far as they did in the plan but it was still just a plan with no real action on the plan inside the capital building.

---

Yes the insurrection was pathetic with no real chance of lasting success. However it was a threat to the lives of Congress members and the Capitol police.

No real American wants democracy ended and a dictator installed, but had the insurrectionists somehow succeeded, thats what would have happened.

There are still morons here claiming the election was stolen. The zealots gonna zealot.

---

Again,

If even a few protestors that day had wanted to kill police or politicians%85.they could have brought semi-automatic weapons to the Capitol and have done it.

But they didn't.

---

Why is it that they needed to kill someone? They thought they could accomplish their goals without guns, most of them. If they had thrown out the will of the people, the certified vote, what would it matter if they used words or guns?

---

how could they have accomplished their goals? How could they have thrown out the will of the people?

Genuine question, I would like to know your thoughts on how they could've possibly succeeded at doing anything other than cause the delay that happened. The protest caused a delay just like the environmentalist who chain themselves to a tree getting bulldozed. Nothing more.

---

Incompetent people who attempt to rob a bank, even if they had no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempted bank robbery.

Incompetent people who attempt insurrection, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempted insurrection.

---

Incompetent bank robbers aren't guilty of trying to topple the financial system, even if the bank was the Federal Reserve.

---

Oso's hypothetical is about the nature of an attempt. Your response is about the nature of what's being attempted. You're refuting WR's point instead of Oso's.

---

Oso said nothing hypothetical. He said they attempted to overthrow the government.

---

The bank robbery hypo.

---

The bank robbery hypo doesn't work.

---

It illustrates the concept of criminal attempt.

---

No one is arguing Jan 6 wasn't criminal.

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

talking about robbing a bank and then standing in front of a bank is not attempted bank robbery.

---

There have been convictions for seditious conspiracy

---

all 2 of them! conspiracy means talking and planning, not doing..

You are always good for a laugh

---

No, in order to win a seditious-conspiracy case, prosecutors have to prove that two or more people conspired to "overthrow, put down or to destroy by force" the U.S. government or bring war against it, or that they plotted to use force to oppose the authority of the government or to block the execution of a law.

---

yes.. conspired means plan which they did, not do which they didnt..

Not bolding conspired doesnt make it not count

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So being escorted around on a guided tour is a crime and inciting a riot isn't?

Got it.

---

guided tour.???? are you freaking nuts? Have you not seen the video? Dude, you are insufferable and brainwashed.

---

You must not have seen the video, JR. The Shaman was most definitely escorted around by multiple officers%85.officers opened doorways for him%85..etc.

---

Step away from the Shaman's shrooms and peyote! It is bad for you! clouds your brain!

---

Like I said, you are talking about a video you obviously did not see. The officers are on tape, for minutes helping him get where he wanted to go.....checking doors, taking him to alternative entrances to circumvent locked doors, actually holding the doors open for him to walk thru. Doesn't make what the shaman did legal, but does vaporize the idea that there was an insurrection going on.

The insurrection narrative is dead as a doornail, JR. You can keep sputtering about it if it makes you feel better, but it it's documented crackpottery at this point.

---

Yet the insurrectionists keep going to prison.

Former Leader of Proud Boys Pleads Guilty to Seditious Conspiracy for Efforts to Stop Transfer of Power Following 2020 Presidential Election
Jeremy Bertino, 43, pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia to seditious conspiracy in connection with the Capitol breach.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-leader-proud-boys-pleads-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-efforts-stop-transfer-power

Leader of Proud Boys and Four Other Members Indicted in Federal Court For Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach
The defendants include Henry "Enrique" Tarrio, 38, of Miami, Florida, the former national chairman of the Proud Boys; Ethan Nordean, 31, of Auburn, Washington; Joseph Biggs, 38, of Ormond Beach, Florida; Zachary Rehl, 37, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Dominic Pezzola, 44, of Rochester, New York.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and

Proud Boys leader pleads guilty in insurrection case
Charles Donohoe of N Carolina

Jan. 6 Proud Boy rioter who approached Chuck Schumer sentenced to 4.5 years
Joshua Pruitt, The Washington Post reported, said at sentencing that he regretted participating in the insurrection.

---

they are going to jail for seditious conspiracy to commit insurection. There was no active attempt to gain control of the govt, only a plan..

They deserve jail for going as far as they did in the plan but it was still just a plan with no real action on the plan inside the capital building.

---

Yes the insurrection was pathetic with no real chance of lasting success. However it was a threat to the lives of Congress members and the Capitol police.

No real American wants democracy ended and a dictator installed, but had the insurrectionists somehow succeeded, thats what would have happened.

There are still morons here claiming the election was stolen. The zealots gonna zealot.

---

Again,

If even a few protestors that day had wanted to kill police or politicians%85.they could have brought semi-automatic weapons to the Capitol and have done it.

But they didn't.

---

Why is it that they needed to kill someone? They thought they could accomplish their goals without guns, most of them. If they had thrown out the will of the people, the certified vote, what would it matter if they used words or guns?

---

how could they have accomplished their goals? How could they have thrown out the will of the people?

Genuine question, I would like to know your thoughts on how they could've possibly succeeded at doing anything other than cause the delay that happened. The protest caused a delay just like the environmentalist who chain themselves to a tree getting bulldozed. Nothing more.

---

Incompetent people who attempt to rob a bank, even if they had no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempted bank robbery.

Incompetent people who attempt insurrection, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempted insurrection.

---

Incompetent bank robbers aren't guilty of trying to topple the financial system, even if the bank was the Federal Reserve.

---

Oso's hypothetical is about the nature of an attempt. Your response is about the nature of what's being attempted. You're refuting WR's point instead of Oso's.

---

Oso said nothing hypothetical. He said they attempted to overthrow the government.

---

The bank robbery hypo.

---

The bank robbery hypo doesn't work.

---

It illustrates the concept of criminal attempt.

---

No one is arguing Jan 6 wasn't criminal.

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

talking about robbing a bank and then standing in front of a bank is not attempted bank robbery.

---

There have been convictions for seditious conspiracy

---

all 2 of them! conspiracy means talking and planning, not doing..

You are always good for a laugh

---

No, in order to win a seditious-conspiracy case, prosecutors have to prove that two or more people conspired to "overthrow, put down or to destroy by force" the U.S. government or bring war against it, or that they plotted to use force to oppose the authority of the government or to block the execution of a law.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So being escorted around on a guided tour is a crime and inciting a riot isn't?

Got it.

---

guided tour.???? are you freaking nuts? Have you not seen the video? Dude, you are insufferable and brainwashed.

---

You must not have seen the video, JR. The Shaman was most definitely escorted around by multiple officers%85.officers opened doorways for him%85..etc.

---

Step away from the Shaman's shrooms and peyote! It is bad for you! clouds your brain!

---

Like I said, you are talking about a video you obviously did not see. The officers are on tape, for minutes helping him get where he wanted to go.....checking doors, taking him to alternative entrances to circumvent locked doors, actually holding the doors open for him to walk thru. Doesn't make what the shaman did legal, but does vaporize the idea that there was an insurrection going on.

The insurrection narrative is dead as a doornail, JR. You can keep sputtering about it if it makes you feel better, but it it's documented crackpottery at this point.

---

Yet the insurrectionists keep going to prison.

Former Leader of Proud Boys Pleads Guilty to Seditious Conspiracy for Efforts to Stop Transfer of Power Following 2020 Presidential Election
Jeremy Bertino, 43, pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia to seditious conspiracy in connection with the Capitol breach.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-leader-proud-boys-pleads-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-efforts-stop-transfer-power

Leader of Proud Boys and Four Other Members Indicted in Federal Court For Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach
The defendants include Henry "Enrique" Tarrio, 38, of Miami, Florida, the former national chairman of the Proud Boys; Ethan Nordean, 31, of Auburn, Washington; Joseph Biggs, 38, of Ormond Beach, Florida; Zachary Rehl, 37, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Dominic Pezzola, 44, of Rochester, New York.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and

Proud Boys leader pleads guilty in insurrection case
Charles Donohoe of N Carolina

Jan. 6 Proud Boy rioter who approached Chuck Schumer sentenced to 4.5 years
Joshua Pruitt, The Washington Post reported, said at sentencing that he regretted participating in the insurrection.

---

they are going to jail for seditious conspiracy to commit insurection. There was no active attempt to gain control of the govt, only a plan..

They deserve jail for going as far as they did in the plan but it was still just a plan with no real action on the plan inside the capital building.

---

Yes the insurrection was pathetic with no real chance of lasting success. However it was a threat to the lives of Congress members and the Capitol police.

No real American wants democracy ended and a dictator installed, but had the insurrectionists somehow succeeded, thats what would have happened.

There are still morons here claiming the election was stolen. The zealots gonna zealot.

---

Again,

If even a few protestors that day had wanted to kill police or politicians%85.they could have brought semi-automatic weapons to the Capitol and have done it.

But they didn't.

---

Why is it that they needed to kill someone? They thought they could accomplish their goals without guns, most of them. If they had thrown out the will of the people, the certified vote, what would it matter if they used words or guns?

---

how could they have accomplished their goals? How could they have thrown out the will of the people?

Genuine question, I would like to know your thoughts on how they could've possibly succeeded at doing anything other than cause the delay that happened. The protest caused a delay just like the environmentalist who chain themselves to a tree getting bulldozed. Nothing more.

---

Incompetent people who attempt to rob a bank, even if they had no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempted bank robbery.

Incompetent people who attempt insurrection, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempted insurrection.

---

Incompetent bank robbers aren't guilty of trying to topple the financial system, even if the bank was the Federal Reserve.

---

Oso's hypothetical is about the nature of an attempt. Your response is about the nature of what's being attempted. You're refuting WR's point instead of Oso's.

---

Oso said nothing hypothetical. He said they attempted to overthrow the government.

---

The bank robbery hypo.

---

The bank robbery hypo doesn't work.

---

It illustrates the concept of criminal attempt.

---

No one is arguing Jan 6 wasn't criminal.

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

talking about robbing a bank and then standing in front of a bank is not attempted bank robbery.

---

There have been convictions for seditious conspiracy

---

all 2 of them! conspiracy means talking and planning, not doing..

You are always good for a laugh

---

No, in order to win a seditious-conspiracy case, prosecutors have to prove that two or more people conspired to "overthrow, put down or to destroy by force" the U.S. government or bring war against it, or that they plotted to use force to oppose the authority of the government or to block the execution of a law.

---

yes.. conspired means plan which they did, not do which they didnt..

Not bolding conspired doesnt make it not count

---

A plan they tried to execute so Trump could steal an election

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So being escorted around on a guided tour is a crime and inciting a riot isn't?

Got it.

---

guided tour.???? are you freaking nuts? Have you not seen the video? Dude, you are insufferable and brainwashed.

---

You must not have seen the video, JR. The Shaman was most definitely escorted around by multiple officers%85.officers opened doorways for him%85..etc.

---

Step away from the Shaman's shrooms and peyote! It is bad for you! clouds your brain!

---

Like I said, you are talking about a video you obviously did not see. The officers are on tape, for minutes helping him get where he wanted to go.....checking doors, taking him to alternative entrances to circumvent locked doors, actually holding the doors open for him to walk thru. Doesn't make what the shaman did legal, but does vaporize the idea that there was an insurrection going on.

The insurrection narrative is dead as a doornail, JR. You can keep sputtering about it if it makes you feel better, but it it's documented crackpottery at this point.

---

Yet the insurrectionists keep going to prison.

Former Leader of Proud Boys Pleads Guilty to Seditious Conspiracy for Efforts to Stop Transfer of Power Following 2020 Presidential Election
Jeremy Bertino, 43, pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia to seditious conspiracy in connection with the Capitol breach.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-leader-proud-boys-pleads-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-efforts-stop-transfer-power

Leader of Proud Boys and Four Other Members Indicted in Federal Court For Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach
The defendants include Henry "Enrique" Tarrio, 38, of Miami, Florida, the former national chairman of the Proud Boys; Ethan Nordean, 31, of Auburn, Washington; Joseph Biggs, 38, of Ormond Beach, Florida; Zachary Rehl, 37, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Dominic Pezzola, 44, of Rochester, New York.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and

Proud Boys leader pleads guilty in insurrection case
Charles Donohoe of N Carolina

Jan. 6 Proud Boy rioter who approached Chuck Schumer sentenced to 4.5 years
Joshua Pruitt, The Washington Post reported, said at sentencing that he regretted participating in the insurrection.

---

they are going to jail for seditious conspiracy to commit insurection. There was no active attempt to gain control of the govt, only a plan..

They deserve jail for going as far as they did in the plan but it was still just a plan with no real action on the plan inside the capital building.

---

Yes the insurrection was pathetic with no real chance of lasting success. However it was a threat to the lives of Congress members and the Capitol police.

No real American wants democracy ended and a dictator installed, but had the insurrectionists somehow succeeded, thats what would have happened.

There are still morons here claiming the election was stolen. The zealots gonna zealot.

---

Again,

If even a few protestors that day had wanted to kill police or politicians%85.they could have brought semi-automatic weapons to the Capitol and have done it.

But they didn't.

---

Why is it that they needed to kill someone? They thought they could accomplish their goals without guns, most of them. If they had thrown out the will of the people, the certified vote, what would it matter if they used words or guns?

---

how could they have accomplished their goals? How could they have thrown out the will of the people?

Genuine question, I would like to know your thoughts on how they could've possibly succeeded at doing anything other than cause the delay that happened. The protest caused a delay just like the environmentalist who chain themselves to a tree getting bulldozed. Nothing more.

---

Incompetent people who attempt to rob a bank, even if they had no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempted bank robbery.

Incompetent people who attempt insurrection, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempted insurrection.

---

Incompetent bank robbers aren't guilty of trying to topple the financial system, even if the bank was the Federal Reserve.

---

Oso's hypothetical is about the nature of an attempt. Your response is about the nature of what's being attempted. You're refuting WR's point instead of Oso's.

---

Oso said nothing hypothetical. He said they attempted to overthrow the government.

---

The bank robbery hypo.

---

The bank robbery hypo doesn't work.

---

It illustrates the concept of criminal attempt.

---

No one is arguing Jan 6 wasn't criminal.

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

talking about robbing a bank and then standing in front of a bank is not attempted bank robbery.

---

There have been convictions for seditious conspiracy

---

all 2 of them! conspiracy means talking and planning, not doing..

You are always good for a laugh

---

No, in order to win a seditious-conspiracy case, prosecutors have to prove that two or more people conspired to "overthrow, put down or to destroy by force" the U.S. government or bring war against it, or that they plotted to use force to oppose the authority of the government or to block the execution of a law.

---

yes.. conspired means plan which they did, not do which they didnt..

Not bolding conspired doesnt make it not count

---

A plan they tried to execute so Trump could steal an election

---

nope.. that would be something other than seditious conspiracy..

Good on you for trying though

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Defies reality because there was no real chance of success, or for some other reason? We've been back and forth on this for a couple of years now.

---

Because you don't overthrow our government by disrupting or even stopping that procedure. The problem is that you and so many others have projected some alternate reality of what happens next. It's your "what happens next" that has created this false projection.

---

How could you possibly overthrow our government anymore than disrupting the peaceful transfer of power? I just dont get this scenario you fantasize about where ever 4 years a mob breaks into the Capitol to threaten to hang the Vice President if he doesn't throw out the votes of America. Why is it that that is normal to you? Why is it that you want to normalize it as if it wouldn't have any impact?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Defies reality because there was no real chance of success, or for some other reason? We've been back and forth on this for a couple of years now.

---

Because you don't overthrow our government by disrupting or even stopping that procedure. The problem is that you and so many others have projected some alternate reality of what happens next. It's your "what happens next" that has created this false projection.

---

No one has been charged or convicted based on my "what happens next." It's entirely based on the intentions of the defendants.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So being escorted around on a guided tour is a crime and inciting a riot isn't?

Got it.

---

guided tour.???? are you freaking nuts? Have you not seen the video? Dude, you are insufferable and brainwashed.

---

You must not have seen the video, JR. The Shaman was most definitely escorted around by multiple officers%85.officers opened doorways for him%85..etc.

---

Step away from the Shaman's shrooms and peyote! It is bad for you! clouds your brain!

---

Like I said, you are talking about a video you obviously did not see. The officers are on tape, for minutes helping him get where he wanted to go.....checking doors, taking him to alternative entrances to circumvent locked doors, actually holding the doors open for him to walk thru. Doesn't make what the shaman did legal, but does vaporize the idea that there was an insurrection going on.

The insurrection narrative is dead as a doornail, JR. You can keep sputtering about it if it makes you feel better, but it it's documented crackpottery at this point.

---

Yet the insurrectionists keep going to prison.

Former Leader of Proud Boys Pleads Guilty to Seditious Conspiracy for Efforts to Stop Transfer of Power Following 2020 Presidential Election
Jeremy Bertino, 43, pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia to seditious conspiracy in connection with the Capitol breach.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-leader-proud-boys-pleads-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-efforts-stop-transfer-power

Leader of Proud Boys and Four Other Members Indicted in Federal Court For Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach
The defendants include Henry "Enrique" Tarrio, 38, of Miami, Florida, the former national chairman of the Proud Boys; Ethan Nordean, 31, of Auburn, Washington; Joseph Biggs, 38, of Ormond Beach, Florida; Zachary Rehl, 37, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Dominic Pezzola, 44, of Rochester, New York.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and

Proud Boys leader pleads guilty in insurrection case
Charles Donohoe of N Carolina

Jan. 6 Proud Boy rioter who approached Chuck Schumer sentenced to 4.5 years
Joshua Pruitt, The Washington Post reported, said at sentencing that he regretted participating in the insurrection.

---

they are going to jail for seditious conspiracy to commit insurection. There was no active attempt to gain control of the govt, only a plan..

They deserve jail for going as far as they did in the plan but it was still just a plan with no real action on the plan inside the capital building.

---

Yes the insurrection was pathetic with no real chance of lasting success. However it was a threat to the lives of Congress members and the Capitol police.

No real American wants democracy ended and a dictator installed, but had the insurrectionists somehow succeeded, thats what would have happened.

There are still morons here claiming the election was stolen. The zealots gonna zealot.

---

Again,

If even a few protestors that day had wanted to kill police or politicians%85.they could have brought semi-automatic weapons to the Capitol and have done it.

But they didn't.

---

Why is it that they needed to kill someone? They thought they could accomplish their goals without guns, most of them. If they had thrown out the will of the people, the certified vote, what would it matter if they used words or guns?

---

how could they have accomplished their goals? How could they have thrown out the will of the people?

Genuine question, I would like to know your thoughts on how they could've possibly succeeded at doing anything other than cause the delay that happened. The protest caused a delay just like the environmentalist who chain themselves to a tree getting bulldozed. Nothing more.

---

Incompetent people who attempt to rob a bank, even if they had no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempted bank robbery.

Incompetent people who attempt insurrection, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempted insurrection.

---

Incompetent bank robbers aren't guilty of trying to topple the financial system, even if the bank was the Federal Reserve.

---

Oso's hypothetical is about the nature of an attempt. Your response is about the nature of what's being attempted. You're refuting WR's point instead of Oso's.

---

Oso said nothing hypothetical. He said they attempted to overthrow the government.

---

The bank robbery hypo.

---

The bank robbery hypo doesn't work.

---

It illustrates the concept of criminal attempt.

---

No one is arguing Jan 6 wasn't criminal.

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

talking about robbing a bank and then standing in front of a bank is not attempted bank robbery.

---

There have been convictions for seditious conspiracy

---

all 2 of them! conspiracy means talking and planning, not doing..

You are always good for a laugh

---

No, in order to win a seditious-conspiracy case, prosecutors have to prove that two or more people conspired to "overthrow, put down or to destroy by force" the U.S. government or bring war against it, or that they plotted to use force to oppose the authority of the government or to block the execution of a law.

---

yes.. conspired means plan which they did, not do which they didnt..

Not bolding conspired doesnt make it not count

---

A plan they tried to execute so Trump could steal an election

---

nope.. that would be something other than seditious conspiracy..

Good on you for trying though

---

You really don't know, do you

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Defies reality because there was no real chance of success, or for some other reason? We've been back and forth on this for a couple of years now.

---

Because you don't overthrow our government by disrupting or even stopping that procedure. The problem is that you and so many others have projected some alternate reality of what happens next. It's your "what happens next" that has created this false projection.

---

No one has been charged or convicted based on my "what happens next." It's entirely based on the intentions of the defendants.

---

Well the protestors had the same intentions as the seditious conspirators, so we're at an assessment of degree here. The problem is, and this may surprise you I know, that disrupting this procedure would not have insurrected or overthrown the government. It wouldn't even have kept Trump in power.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Defies reality because there was no real chance of success, or for some other reason? We've been back and forth on this for a couple of years now.

---

Because you don't overthrow our government by disrupting or even stopping that procedure. The problem is that you and so many others have projected some alternate reality of what happens next. It's your "what happens next" that has created this false projection.

---

No one has been charged or convicted based on my "what happens next." It's entirely based on the intentions of the defendants.

---

Well the protestors had the same intentions as the seditious conspirators, so we're at an assessment of degree here. The problem is, and this may surprise you I know, that disrupting this procedure would not have insurrected or overthrown the government. It wouldn't even have kept Trump in power.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So being escorted around on a guided tour is a crime and inciting a riot isn't?

Got it.

---

guided tour.???? are you freaking nuts? Have you not seen the video? Dude, you are insufferable and brainwashed.

---

You must not have seen the video, JR. The Shaman was most definitely escorted around by multiple officers%85.officers opened doorways for him%85..etc.

---

Step away from the Shaman's shrooms and peyote! It is bad for you! clouds your brain!

---

Like I said, you are talking about a video you obviously did not see. The officers are on tape, for minutes helping him get where he wanted to go.....checking doors, taking him to alternative entrances to circumvent locked doors, actually holding the doors open for him to walk thru. Doesn't make what the shaman did legal, but does vaporize the idea that there was an insurrection going on.

The insurrection narrative is dead as a doornail, JR. You can keep sputtering about it if it makes you feel better, but it it's documented crackpottery at this point.

---

Yet the insurrectionists keep going to prison.

Former Leader of Proud Boys Pleads Guilty to Seditious Conspiracy for Efforts to Stop Transfer of Power Following 2020 Presidential Election
Jeremy Bertino, 43, pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia to seditious conspiracy in connection with the Capitol breach.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-leader-proud-boys-pleads-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-efforts-stop-transfer-power

Leader of Proud Boys and Four Other Members Indicted in Federal Court For Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach
The defendants include Henry "Enrique" Tarrio, 38, of Miami, Florida, the former national chairman of the Proud Boys; Ethan Nordean, 31, of Auburn, Washington; Joseph Biggs, 38, of Ormond Beach, Florida; Zachary Rehl, 37, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Dominic Pezzola, 44, of Rochester, New York.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and

Proud Boys leader pleads guilty in insurrection case
Charles Donohoe of N Carolina

Jan. 6 Proud Boy rioter who approached Chuck Schumer sentenced to 4.5 years
Joshua Pruitt, The Washington Post reported, said at sentencing that he regretted participating in the insurrection.

---

they are going to jail for seditious conspiracy to commit insurection. There was no active attempt to gain control of the govt, only a plan..

They deserve jail for going as far as they did in the plan but it was still just a plan with no real action on the plan inside the capital building.

---

Yes the insurrection was pathetic with no real chance of lasting success. However it was a threat to the lives of Congress members and the Capitol police.

No real American wants democracy ended and a dictator installed, but had the insurrectionists somehow succeeded, thats what would have happened.

There are still morons here claiming the election was stolen. The zealots gonna zealot.

---

Again,

If even a few protestors that day had wanted to kill police or politicians%85.they could have brought semi-automatic weapons to the Capitol and have done it.

But they didn't.

---

Why is it that they needed to kill someone? They thought they could accomplish their goals without guns, most of them. If they had thrown out the will of the people, the certified vote, what would it matter if they used words or guns?

---

how could they have accomplished their goals? How could they have thrown out the will of the people?

Genuine question, I would like to know your thoughts on how they could've possibly succeeded at doing anything other than cause the delay that happened. The protest caused a delay just like the environmentalist who chain themselves to a tree getting bulldozed. Nothing more.

---

Incompetent people who attempt to rob a bank, even if they had no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempted bank robbery.

Incompetent people who attempt insurrection, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempted insurrection.

---

Incompetent bank robbers aren't guilty of trying to topple the financial system, even if the bank was the Federal Reserve.

---

Oso's hypothetical is about the nature of an attempt. Your response is about the nature of what's being attempted. You're refuting WR's point instead of Oso's.

---

Oso said nothing hypothetical. He said they attempted to overthrow the government.

---

The bank robbery hypo.

---

The bank robbery hypo doesn't work.

---

It illustrates the concept of criminal attempt.

---

No one is arguing Jan 6 wasn't criminal.

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

talking about robbing a bank and then standing in front of a bank is not attempted bank robbery.

---

There have been convictions for seditious conspiracy

---

all 2 of them! conspiracy means talking and planning, not doing..

You are always good for a laugh

---

No, in order to win a seditious-conspiracy case, prosecutors have to prove that two or more people conspired to "overthrow, put down or to destroy by force" the U.S. government or bring war against it, or that they plotted to use force to oppose the authority of the government or to block the execution of a law.

---

yes.. conspired means plan which they did, not do which they didnt..

Not bolding conspired doesnt make it not count

---

A plan they tried to execute so Trump could steal an election

---

nope.. that would be something other than seditious conspiracy..

Good on you for trying though

---

You really don't know, do you

---

"they conspired to use force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States"

Thats why they were convicted/plead guilty. Its not the junk you posted about overthrowing the govt.

Now, trust me

18 U.S. Code 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Read-" Whoever sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof,"

Thats doing.. nobody was charged with this

18 U.S. Code 2385 - (advocating Overthrowing the govt.) nobody was charged with this

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So being escorted around on a guided tour is a crime and inciting a riot isn't?

Got it.

---

guided tour.???? are you freaking nuts? Have you not seen the video? Dude, you are insufferable and brainwashed.

---

You must not have seen the video, JR. The Shaman was most definitely escorted around by multiple officers%85.officers opened doorways for him%85..etc.

---

Step away from the Shaman's shrooms and peyote! It is bad for you! clouds your brain!

---

Like I said, you are talking about a video you obviously did not see. The officers are on tape, for minutes helping him get where he wanted to go.....checking doors, taking him to alternative entrances to circumvent locked doors, actually holding the doors open for him to walk thru. Doesn't make what the shaman did legal, but does vaporize the idea that there was an insurrection going on.

The insurrection narrative is dead as a doornail, JR. You can keep sputtering about it if it makes you feel better, but it it's documented crackpottery at this point.

---

Yet the insurrectionists keep going to prison.

Former Leader of Proud Boys Pleads Guilty to Seditious Conspiracy for Efforts to Stop Transfer of Power Following 2020 Presidential Election
Jeremy Bertino, 43, pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia to seditious conspiracy in connection with the Capitol breach.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-leader-proud-boys-pleads-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-efforts-stop-transfer-power

Leader of Proud Boys and Four Other Members Indicted in Federal Court For Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach
The defendants include Henry "Enrique" Tarrio, 38, of Miami, Florida, the former national chairman of the Proud Boys; Ethan Nordean, 31, of Auburn, Washington; Joseph Biggs, 38, of Ormond Beach, Florida; Zachary Rehl, 37, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Dominic Pezzola, 44, of Rochester, New York.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and

Proud Boys leader pleads guilty in insurrection case
Charles Donohoe of N Carolina

Jan. 6 Proud Boy rioter who approached Chuck Schumer sentenced to 4.5 years
Joshua Pruitt, The Washington Post reported, said at sentencing that he regretted participating in the insurrection.

---

they are going to jail for seditious conspiracy to commit insurection. There was no active attempt to gain control of the govt, only a plan..

They deserve jail for going as far as they did in the plan but it was still just a plan with no real action on the plan inside the capital building.

---

Yes the insurrection was pathetic with no real chance of lasting success. However it was a threat to the lives of Congress members and the Capitol police.

No real American wants democracy ended and a dictator installed, but had the insurrectionists somehow succeeded, thats what would have happened.

There are still morons here claiming the election was stolen. The zealots gonna zealot.

---

Again,

If even a few protestors that day had wanted to kill police or politicians%85.they could have brought semi-automatic weapons to the Capitol and have done it.

But they didn't.

---

Why is it that they needed to kill someone? They thought they could accomplish their goals without guns, most of them. If they had thrown out the will of the people, the certified vote, what would it matter if they used words or guns?

---

how could they have accomplished their goals? How could they have thrown out the will of the people?

Genuine question, I would like to know your thoughts on how they could've possibly succeeded at doing anything other than cause the delay that happened. The protest caused a delay just like the environmentalist who chain themselves to a tree getting bulldozed. Nothing more.

---

Incompetent people who attempt to rob a bank, even if they had no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempted bank robbery.

Incompetent people who attempt insurrection, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempted insurrection.

---

Incompetent bank robbers aren't guilty of trying to topple the financial system, even if the bank was the Federal Reserve.

---

Oso's hypothetical is about the nature of an attempt. Your response is about the nature of what's being attempted. You're refuting WR's point instead of Oso's.

---

Oso said nothing hypothetical. He said they attempted to overthrow the government.

---

The bank robbery hypo.

---

The bank robbery hypo doesn't work.

---

It illustrates the concept of criminal attempt.

---

No one is arguing Jan 6 wasn't criminal.

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

talking about robbing a bank and then standing in front of a bank is not attempted bank robbery.

---

There have been convictions for seditious conspiracy

---

all 2 of them! conspiracy means talking and planning, not doing..

You are always good for a laugh

---

No, in order to win a seditious-conspiracy case, prosecutors have to prove that two or more people conspired to "overthrow, put down or to destroy by force" the U.S. government or bring war against it, or that they plotted to use force to oppose the authority of the government or to block the execution of a law.

---

yes.. conspired means plan which they did, not do which they didnt..

Not bolding conspired doesnt make it not count

---

A plan they tried to execute so Trump could steal an election

---

nope.. that would be something other than seditious conspiracy..

Good on you for trying though

---

You really don't know, do you

---

"they conspired to use force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States"

Thats why they were convicted/plead guilty. Its not the junk you posted about overthrowing the govt.

Now, trust me

18 U.S. Code 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Read-" Whoever sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof,"

Thats doing.. nobody was charged with this

18 U.S. Code 2385 - (advocating Overthrowing the govt.) nobody was charged with this

---

I don't trust you

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Defies reality because there was no real chance of success, or for some other reason? We've been back and forth on this for a couple of years now.

---

Because you don't overthrow our government by disrupting or even stopping that procedure. The problem is that you and so many others have projected some alternate reality of what happens next. It's your "what happens next" that has created this false projection.

---

No one has been charged or convicted based on my "what happens next." It's entirely based on the intentions of the defendants.

---

Well the protestors had the same intentions as the seditious conspirators, so we're at an assessment of degree here. The problem is, and this may surprise you I know, that disrupting this procedure would not have insurrected or overthrown the government. It wouldn't even have kept Trump in power.

---

The intention wasn't just to disrupt. It was to stop the transfer of power and keep Trump in office.

Having been around other insurrections doesn't necessarily mean much. They're not defined by how well they're choreographed or how dramatic they are. An insurrection is simply a violent attempt to wrest power from the legitimate leader. It might not look like the last one, it might not look like the next one, but that's what it was.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Defies reality because there was no real chance of success, or for some other reason? We've been back and forth on this for a couple of years now.

---

Because you don't overthrow our government by disrupting or even stopping that procedure. The problem is that you and so many others have projected some alternate reality of what happens next. It's your "what happens next" that has created this false projection.

---

No one has been charged or convicted based on my "what happens next." It's entirely based on the intentions of the defendants.

---

Well the protestors had the same intentions as the seditious conspirators, so we're at an assessment of degree here. The problem is, and this may surprise you I know, that disrupting this procedure would not have insurrected or overthrown the government. It wouldn't even have kept Trump in power.

---

The intention wasn't just to disrupt. It was to stop the transfer of power and keep Trump in office.

Having been around other insurrections doesn't necessarily mean much. They're not defined by how well they're choreographed or how dramatic they are. An insurrection is simply a violent attempt to wrest power from the legitimate leader. It might not look like the last one, it might not look like the next one, but that's what it was.

ETA: By the way, keeping Trump in power and overthrowing the government are the same thing. If you're looking for some distinction there, it doesn't exist. Dictators and other usurpers don't always have to raze the institutions of government and create entirely new ones. They seize control of existing ones all the time.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Defies reality because there was no real chance of success, or for some other reason? We've been back and forth on this for a couple of years now.

---

Because you don't overthrow our government by disrupting or even stopping that procedure. The problem is that you and so many others have projected some alternate reality of what happens next. It's your "what happens next" that has created this false projection.

---

No one has been charged or convicted based on my "what happens next." It's entirely based on the intentions of the defendants.

---

Well the protestors had the same intentions as the seditious conspirators, so we're at an assessment of degree here. The problem is, and this may surprise you I know, that disrupting this procedure would not have insurrected or overthrown the government. It wouldn't even have kept Trump in power.

---

The intention wasn't just to disrupt. It was to stop the transfer of power and keep Trump in office.

Having been around other insurrections doesn't necessarily mean much. They're not defined by how well they're choreographed or how dramatic they are. An insurrection is simply a violent attempt to wrest power from the legitimate leader. It might not look like the last one, it might not look like the next one, but that's what it was.

---

But the insurrection projectors believe Trump was waiting in the wings to pounce on the opportunity and then maybe get into the area of actual insurrection, like suspension of Congress, activation of Military to retain control and hold the White House, invoke posse comitatus, and be the dictator we all just know he is deep down inside...

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Defies reality because there was no real chance of success, or for some other reason? We've been back and forth on this for a couple of years now.

---

Because you don't overthrow our government by disrupting or even stopping that procedure. The problem is that you and so many others have projected some alternate reality of what happens next. It's your "what happens next" that has created this false projection.

---

No one has been charged or convicted based on my "what happens next." It's entirely based on the intentions of the defendants.

---

Well the protestors had the same intentions as the seditious conspirators, so we're at an assessment of degree here. The problem is, and this may surprise you I know, that disrupting this procedure would not have insurrected or overthrown the government. It wouldn't even have kept Trump in power.

---

The intention wasn't just to disrupt. It was to stop the transfer of power and keep Trump in office.

Having been around other insurrections doesn't necessarily mean much. They're not defined by how well they're choreographed or how dramatic they are. An insurrection is simply a violent attempt to wrest power from the legitimate leader. It might not look like the last one, it might not look like the next one, but that's what it was.

ETA: By the way, keeping Trump in power and overthrowing the government are the same thing. If you're looking for some distinction there, it doesn't exist. Dictators and other usurpers don't always have to raze the institutions of government and create entirely new ones. They seize control of existing ones all the time.

---

This edit was added after my reply. What they did wouldn't have kept Trump in power, which is what I said above. Twice.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Defies reality because there was no real chance of success, or for some other reason? We've been back and forth on this for a couple of years now.

---

Because you don't overthrow our government by disrupting or even stopping that procedure. The problem is that you and so many others have projected some alternate reality of what happens next. It's your "what happens next" that has created this false projection.

---

No one has been charged or convicted based on my "what happens next." It's entirely based on the intentions of the defendants.

---

Well the protestors had the same intentions as the seditious conspirators, so we're at an assessment of degree here. The problem is, and this may surprise you I know, that disrupting this procedure would not have insurrected or overthrown the government. It wouldn't even have kept Trump in power.

---

The intention wasn't just to disrupt. It was to stop the transfer of power and keep Trump in office.

Having been around other insurrections doesn't necessarily mean much. They're not defined by how well they're choreographed or how dramatic they are. An insurrection is simply a violent attempt to wrest power from the legitimate leader. It might not look like the last one, it might not look like the next one, but that's what it was.

---

But the insurrection projectors believe Trump was waiting in the wings to pounce on the opportunity and then maybe get into the area of actual insurrection, like suspension of Congress, activation of Military to retain control and hold the White House, invoke posse comitatus, and be the dictator we all just know he is deep down inside...

---

Not the projectors. This is what the insurrectionists themselves believed. It's what they were planning for.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Defies reality because there was no real chance of success, or for some other reason? We've been back and forth on this for a couple of years now.

---

Because you don't overthrow our government by disrupting or even stopping that procedure. The problem is that you and so many others have projected some alternate reality of what happens next. It's your "what happens next" that has created this false projection.

---

No one has been charged or convicted based on my "what happens next." It's entirely based on the intentions of the defendants.

---

Well the protestors had the same intentions as the seditious conspirators, so we're at an assessment of degree here. The problem is, and this may surprise you I know, that disrupting this procedure would not have insurrected or overthrown the government. It wouldn't even have kept Trump in power.

---

The intention wasn't just to disrupt. It was to stop the transfer of power and keep Trump in office.

Having been around other insurrections doesn't necessarily mean much. They're not defined by how well they're choreographed or how dramatic they are. An insurrection is simply a violent attempt to wrest power from the legitimate leader. It might not look like the last one, it might not look like the next one, but that's what it was.

---

But the insurrection projectors believe Trump was waiting in the wings to pounce on the opportunity and then maybe get into the area of actual insurrection, like suspension of Congress, activation of Military to retain control and hold the White House, invoke posse comitatus, and be the dictator we all just know he is deep down inside...

---

Not the projectors. This is what the insurrectionists themselves believed. It's what they were planning for.

---

I'd disagree on the actual facts of the situation, but even if we go with your projection, it just means both sides had fantasies. I mean, you'd think they'd have at least some level of involvement of the actual person needed most for their foil to work.

---

"Far-right."

"Extremist."

"Storming."

"Invaded."

"Rioters."

The intro sentence has all of the above words because without it, a sane country would reject a 3-year sentence for a rowdy trespasser.

BTW, does AP use "invading" regarding current events at the U.S. border? pic.twitter.com/IsWOZtW7EP

— Yossi Gestetner (@YossiGestetner) March 24, 2023

4th and In said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

talking about robbing a bank and then standing in front of a bank is not attempted bank robbery.

---

There have been convictions for seditious conspiracy

---

all 2 of them! conspiracy means talking and planning, not doing..

You are always good for a laugh

---

No, in order to win a seditious-conspiracy case, prosecutors have to prove that two or more people conspired to "overthrow, put down or to destroy by force" the U.S. government or bring war against it, or that they plotted to use force to oppose the authority of the government or to block the execution of a law.

---

yes.. conspired means plan which they did, not do which they didnt..

Not bolding conspired doesnt make it not count

---

The Qanon Shaman has been released from prison, 14 months earlier than expected, just a few weeks after @TuckerCarlson aired exculpatory January 6th video that his defense attorneys claim they never saw.

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) March 30, 2023

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Defies reality because there was no real chance of success, or for some other reason? We've been back and forth on this for a couple of years now.

---

Because you don't overthrow our government by disrupting or even stopping that procedure. The problem is that you and so many others have projected some alternate reality of what happens next. It's your "what happens next" that has created this false projection.

---

No one has been charged or convicted based on my "what happens next." It's entirely based on the intentions of the defendants.

---

Well the protestors had the same intentions as the seditious conspirators, so we're at an assessment of degree here. The problem is, and this may surprise you I know, that disrupting this procedure would not have insurrected or overthrown the government. It wouldn't even have kept Trump in power.

---

The intention wasn't just to disrupt. It was to stop the transfer of power and keep Trump in office.

Having been around other insurrections doesn't necessarily mean much. They're not defined by how well they're choreographed or how dramatic they are. An insurrection is simply a violent attempt to wrest power from the legitimate leader. It might not look like the last one, it might not look like the next one, but that's what it was.

---

But the insurrection projectors believe Trump was waiting in the wings to pounce on the opportunity and then maybe get into the area of actual insurrection, like suspension of Congress, activation of Military to retain control and hold the White House, invoke posse comitatus, and be the dictator we all just know he is deep down inside...

---

Not the projectors. This is what the insurrectionists themselves believed. It's what they were planning for.

---

All of these people must be arrested by the FBI and thrown in solitary confinement for at least a year. Democracy depends on it. pic.twitter.com/j8ehKdTTjg

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 30, 2023

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Defies reality because there was no real chance of success, or for some other reason? We've been back and forth on this for a couple of years now.

---

Because you don't overthrow our government by disrupting or even stopping that procedure. The problem is that you and so many others have projected some alternate reality of what happens next. It's your "what happens next" that has created this false projection.

---

No one has been charged or convicted based on my "what happens next." It's entirely based on the intentions of the defendants.

---

Well the protestors had the same intentions as the seditious conspirators, so we're at an assessment of degree here. The problem is, and this may surprise you I know, that disrupting this procedure would not have insurrected or overthrown the government. It wouldn't even have kept Trump in power.

---

The intention wasn't just to disrupt. It was to stop the transfer of power and keep Trump in office.

Having been around other insurrections doesn't necessarily mean much. They're not defined by how well they're choreographed or how dramatic they are. An insurrection is simply a violent attempt to wrest power from the legitimate leader. It might not look like the last one, it might not look like the next one, but that's what it was.

---

But the insurrection projectors believe Trump was waiting in the wings to pounce on the opportunity and then maybe get into the area of actual insurrection, like suspension of Congress, activation of Military to retain control and hold the White House, invoke posse comitatus, and be the dictator we all just know he is deep down inside...

---

Not the projectors. This is what the insurrectionists themselves believed. It's what they were planning for.

---

This won't even hit major news:

All of these people must be arrested by the FBI and thrown in solitary confinement for at least a year. Democracy depends on it. pic.twitter.com/j8ehKdTTjg

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 30, 2023

---

Don’t care. This is a red state. If the Tennessee governor/AG don’t have the balls to lock these savages up for long prison sentences for “insurrection”, then I hope this keeps happening. They deserve it.

Start getting serious with these people. I promise, they’re serious. https://t.co/Zobu6GmaNl

— Jesse Kelly (@JesseKellyDC) March 30, 2023

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

No, you're arguing that it was only trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. because those were the only crimes that were successfully committed. The point is that, like an attempted bank robbery, an attempted overthrow of the government is more than just trespassing.

---

You're thinking of someone else. I'm arguing that attempting to rob a bank doesn't mean you are attempting to bring down the financial system, or even the bank, despite the fact that a loss of money is required for either of those to occur.

---

Okay, forget the robbery. Incompetent people who attempt to bring down the financial system, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to bring down the financial system. Incompetent people who attempt to overthrow the government, even if they have no real prospect of succeeding, are guilty of attempting to overthrow the government. That's what happened in this case. The purpose was to stop the transfer of power, not just disrupt it.

---

And no, they didn't do anything to stop the transfer of power.

---

The law disagrees, as do many of the defendants themselves.

---

Sure, it's good for the papers and politicians. It defies reality though, whether or not a couple of guys copped pleas to something. And we've used this projection of what that day was to frame a whole host of radical rebels trying to overthrow the government. That's doing more harm to this country than anything that occurred on Jan 6th.

---

Defies reality because there was no real chance of success, or for some other reason? We've been back and forth on this for a couple of years now.

---

Because you don't overthrow our government by disrupting or even stopping that procedure. The problem is that you and so many others have projected some alternate reality of what happens next. It's your "what happens next" that has created this false projection.

---

No one has been charged or convicted based on my "what happens next." It's entirely based on the intentions of the defendants.

---

Well the protestors had the same intentions as the seditious conspirators, so we're at an assessment of degree here. The problem is, and this may surprise you I know, that disrupting this procedure would not have insurrected or overthrown the government. It wouldn't even have kept Trump in power.

---

The intention wasn't just to disrupt. It was to stop the transfer of power and keep Trump in office.

Having been around other insurrections doesn't necessarily mean much. They're not defined by how well they're choreographed or how dramatic they are. An insurrection is simply a violent attempt to wrest power from the legitimate leader. It might not look like the last one, it might not look like the next one, but that's what it was.

---

But the insurrection projectors believe Trump was waiting in the wings to pounce on the opportunity and then maybe get into the area of actual insurrection, like suspension of Congress, activation of Military to retain control and hold the White House, invoke posse comitatus, and be the dictator we all just know he is deep down inside...

---

Not the projectors. This is what the insurrectionists themselves believed. It's what they were planning for.

---

This won't even hit major news:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

How could you possibly overthrow our government anymore than disrupting the peaceful transfer of power? I just dont get this scenario you fantasize about where ever 4 years a mob breaks into the Capitol to threaten to hang the Vice President if he doesn't throw out the votes of America. Why is it that that is normal to you? Why is it that you want to normalize it as if it wouldn't have any impact?

---

Well killing the VP is assassination and murder, so that's a separate lane. And I'm not for normalizing anything like what happened on Jan 6, so that's a strawman. In fact I break with many Republicans in that I do believe Trump incited a riot. And people were rightly charged and convicted for their acts during the riot. But it was just that, a riot.

You can peacefully disrupt the transfer of power via court injunction, a procedural move like Pence was asked to do, as well as non violently occupying the Capitol building. Does that make those others an attempt to overthrow the government? Of course not, because there are many steps beyond that required to even get into the neighborhood of government usurpation. I've been around insurrections in other parts of the world, and this "disrupt a procedure" and "peaceful transfer of power" bit is quite frankly a joke as it relates to framing as insurrection, and is blatantly a political motive to besmirch a wide swath of Americans. Even your response above has fantastical projections of horrible things happening "every four years". As I said above, there's great consternation of "what could have been", which is as unobjective as anything.

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

How could you possibly overthrow our government anymore than disrupting the peaceful transfer of power? I just dont get this scenario you fantasize about where ever 4 years a mob breaks into the Capitol to threaten to hang the Vice President if he doesn't throw out the votes of America. Why is it that that is normal to you? Why is it that you want to normalize it as if it wouldn't have any impact?

---

Well killing the VP is assassination and murder, so that's a separate lane. And I'm not for normalizing anything like what happened on Jan 6, so that's a strawman. In fact I break with many Republicans in that I do believe Trump incited a riot. And people were rightly charged and convicted for their acts during the riot. But it was just that, a riot.

You can peacefully disrupt the transfer of power via court injunction, a procedural move like Pence was asked to do, as well as non violently occupying the Capitol building. Does that make those others an attempt to overthrow the government? Of course not, because there are many steps beyond that required to even get into the neighborhood of government usurpation. I've been around insurrections in other parts of the world, and this "disrupt a procedure" and "peaceful transfer of power" bit is quite frankly a joke as it relates to framing as insurrection, and is blatantly a political motive to besmirch a wide swath of Americans. Even your response above has fantastical projections of horrible things happening "every four years". As I said above, there's great consternation of "what could have been", which is as unobjective as anything.

---

How is taking seriously a mob breaching the Capitol with stated intent unobjective? And most Republicans call it a riot, you are simply toeing the party line.

Killing the VP is limited to murder? Has nothing to do with the government? What a joke.

The breached a government building and forced Congress into hiding. They stated their goals put loud, and had they accomplished them, we would have had a military enforced revote, or alternate electors who would have installed Trump as dictator. Dod they stand much of a chance? No. This is being objective.

---

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

How could you possibly overthrow our government anymore than disrupting the peaceful transfer of power? I just dont get this scenario you fantasize about where ever 4 years a mob breaks into the Capitol to threaten to hang the Vice President if he doesn't throw out the votes of America. Why is it that that is normal to you? Why is it that you want to normalize it as if it wouldn't have any impact?

---

Well killing the VP is assassination and murder, so that's a separate lane. And I'm not for normalizing anything like what happened on Jan 6, so that's a strawman. In fact I break with many Republicans in that I do believe Trump incited a riot. And people were rightly charged and convicted for their acts during the riot. But it was just that, a riot.

You can peacefully disrupt the transfer of power via court injunction, a procedural move like Pence was asked to do, as well as non violently occupying the Capitol building. Does that make those others an attempt to overthrow the government? Of course not, because there are many steps beyond that required to even get into the neighborhood of government usurpation. I've been around insurrections in other parts of the world, and this "disrupt a procedure" and "peaceful transfer of power" bit is quite frankly a joke as it relates to framing as insurrection, and is blatantly a political motive to besmirch a wide swath of Americans. Even your response above has fantastical projections of horrible things happening "every four years". As I said above, there's great consternation of "what could have been", which is as unobjective as anything.

---

How is taking seriously a mob breaching the Capitol with stated intent unobjective? And most Republicans call it a riot, you are simply toeing the party line.

Killing the VP is limited to murder? Has nothing to do with the government? What a joke.

The breached a government building and forced Congress into hiding. They stated their goals put loud, and had they accomplished them, we would have had a military enforced revote, or alternate electors who would have installed Trump as dictator. Dod they stand much of a chance? No. This is being objective.

---

My column on that bonkers interview btw CSPAN founder Brian Lamb and his longtime coworker—a juror on a major Jan 6 trial.

If you want to know what Trump supporters are up against in the kangaroo courts of Washington DC, this is a must-read: https://t.co/BtXGxvs2ed

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 31, 2023