whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!

---

The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal

---

Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.

That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.

You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.

neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.

---

This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.

Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.

---

I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.

If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.

Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.

If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.

---

There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.

---

It is not insurrection to have that alternative slate ready to go in case the original slate is rejected at the federal level.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

almost everything you and Sam are posting undermines the case for insurrection.

We have the Trump speech on transcript and video. He said not a single word or phrase the could reasonably be inferred as incitement, and made several comments urging peaceful action.

You have done a very, very good job of building a case that by not conceding the election and making allegations of fraud, he energized his base to base to assemble and protest. I agree entirely. But those are protected 1st Amendment rights. And you clearly make that case within a traditional Republican context of "we do not act like Democrats...we do not protest, and we damned sure do not riot." Ok, Fair enough. I get that. It's virtue posturing nonsense, but I see/hear that a lot on our side, a lot less than before, thankfully, but you're not in cray-cray land yet. Where you explode your analytical credibility is when you take the leap of logic that, because a small riot broke out amid an enormous and otherwise peaceful protest, Trump is an insurrectionist, that he did it all hoping to cause an insurrection, etc..... There is no evidence of that, at all, not a shred, other than the assessments of like minded people (can you spell confirmation bias?). Just a psychologically-driven need to perceive events in a way that justify the rage you feel toward a man you viscerally cannot stand.

One day, you will look back on the insurrection arguments you are making here and be embarrassed at how tenuous they are.

---

Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.

---

Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!

---

The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal

---

Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.

That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.

You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.

neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.

---

This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.

Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.

---

That means each of the elements I identified above is by definition not insurrection.

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.

Sort of hard to prosecute...

---

Are you familiar with the word "attempted?"

---

So, attempted can be used for any failed policy decision?

Bottomline, is the certification and whether to accept a slate of electors is a political policy decision, in your world anyone who disagrees and verbalizes should be prosecuted. Taken one step further, any political or policy decision not accepted is cause for prosecution.

---

Jan 6 wasn't a "failed policy decision". Policy is balanced budget, going to war, government healthcare, etc.
Jan 6 was an attempt to steal the election for Trump. A losing candidate had a bogus slate of electors submitted and wants the presiding officer to throw out the the real slates and substitute the bogus slates. That was Trump's policy, steal the election. He is dishonest and devoid of ethics.

I don't want Trump prosecuted because it would be bad for the country. Prosecuting Nixon would have been bad for the country.

---

It is all political strategy, same as impeachment a political move not legal...There is nothing illegal in not agreeing with the election and using Constitutional options. If he did it, the SCOTUS would have ruled. He didn't, it is a non-issue. Once again, for all your bluster everything happened on time. He can say whatever he wants, fact is actions kill any prosecution which is why Garland won't charge him.

If you have proof he was behind the break in at Congress and part of it, charge him. Otherwise this is a huge slander party and a disgrace.

---

And it would have been over.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!

---

The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal

---

Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.

That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.

You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.

neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.

---

This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.

Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.

---

I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.

If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.

Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.

If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.

---

There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.

---

It is not insurrection to have that alternative slate ready to go in case the original slate is rejected at the federal level.

---

Except that the original slates weren't rejected at the federal level, and the Trumpists revolted anyway.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.

Sort of hard to prosecute...

---

Are you familiar with the word "attempted?"

---

So, attempted can be used for any failed policy decision?

Bottomline, is the certification and whether to accept a slate of electors is a political policy decision, in your world anyone who disagrees and verbalizes should be prosecuted. Taken one step further, any political or policy decision not accepted is cause for prosecution.

---

Jan 6 wasn't a "failed policy decision". Policy is balanced budget, going to war, government healthcare, etc.
Jan 6 was an attempt to steal the election for Trump. A losing candidate had a bogus slate of electors submitted and wants the presiding officer to throw out the the real slates and substitute the bogus slates. That was Trump's policy, steal the election. He is dishonest and devoid of ethics.

I don't want Trump prosecuted because it would be bad for the country. Prosecuting Nixon would have been bad for the country.

---

It is all political strategy, same as impeachment a political move not legal...There is nothing illegal in not agreeing with the election and using Constitutional options. If he did it, the SCOTUS would have ruled. He didn't, it is a non-issue. Once again, for all your bluster everything happened on time. He can say whatever he wants, fact is actions kill any prosecution which is why Garland won't charge him.

If you have proof he was behind the break in at Congress and part of it, charge him. Otherwise this is a huge slander party and a disgrace.

---

And it would have been over.

---

Not if the military sided with Trump, as his mob believed and intended.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

You keep saying stuff like this like it matters that Trump didn't agree with the election results. You simply cannot get around the fact that Trump's VP and President of the Senate certified the election as submitted. Trump could have been standing in the gallery screaming that he won and does not agree, it matters not one bit. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WILL ALWAYS TRUMP WHAT SOMEONE WANTS OR THINKS.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I really want to hit that guy. Do you think I should hit that guy? Will you hit that guy for me? I think hitting the guy is legal. I disagree with you not hitting that guy. Nobody ends up hitting the guy, nothing happened.

Sort of hard to prosecute...

---

Are you familiar with the word "attempted?"

---

So, attempted can be used for any failed policy decision?

Bottomline, is the certification and whether to accept a slate of electors is a political policy decision, in your world anyone who disagrees and verbalizes should be prosecuted. Taken one step further, any political or policy decision not accepted is cause for prosecution.

---

Jan 6 wasn't a "failed policy decision". Policy is balanced budget, going to war, government healthcare, etc.
Jan 6 was an attempt to steal the election for Trump. A losing candidate had a bogus slate of electors submitted and wants the presiding officer to throw out the the real slates and substitute the bogus slates. That was Trump's policy, steal the election. He is dishonest and devoid of ethics.

I don't want Trump prosecuted because it would be bad for the country. Prosecuting Nixon would have been bad for the country.

---

It is all political strategy, same as impeachment a political move not legal...There is nothing illegal in not agreeing with the election and using Constitutional options. If he did it, the SCOTUS would have ruled. He didn't, it is a non-issue. Once again, for all your bluster everything happened on time. He can say whatever he wants, fact is actions kill any prosecution which is why Garland won't charge him.

If you have proof he was behind the break in at Congress and part of it, charge him. Otherwise this is a huge slander party and a disgrace.

---

And it would have been over.

---

Not if the military sided with Trump, as his mob believed and intended.

---

Here we go. "If" and "believe" we are again in the world of supposition and implied no way to prove world. Seems like you guys are living there...

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!

---

The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal

---

Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.

That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.

You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.

neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.

---

This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.

Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.

---

I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.

If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.

Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.

If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.

---

There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.

---

It is not insurrection to have that alternative slate ready to go in case the original slate is rejected at the federal level.

---

Except that the original slates weren't rejected at the federal level, and the Trumpists revolted anyway.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!

---

The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal

---

Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.

That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.

You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.

neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.

---

This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.

Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.

---

I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.

If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.

Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.

If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.

---

There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.

---

It is not insurrection to have that alternative slate ready to go in case the original slate is rejected at the federal level.

---

Except that the original slates weren't rejected at the federal level, and the Trumpists revolted anyway.

---

to be fair, the "trumpists revolted" before the slates were accepted or rejected but details dont matter..

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!

---

The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal

---

Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.

That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.

You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.

neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.

---

This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.

Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.

---

I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.

If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.

Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.

If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.

---

There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.

---

It is not insurrection to have that alternative slate ready to go in case the original slate is rejected at the federal level.

---

Except that the original slates weren't rejected at the federal level, and the Trumpists revolted anyway.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal

---

Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.

That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.

You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.

neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.

---

This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.

Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.

---

That means each of the elements I identified above is by definition not insurrection.

---

None of those elements are the basis of the accusation. They're straw men.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

To Sam and Oso, no one must challenge the State Democrats... ever.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!

---

The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal

---

Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.

That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.

You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.

neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.

---

This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.

Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.

---

I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.

If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.

Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.

If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.

---

There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.

---

It is not insurrection to have that alternative slate ready to go in case the original slate is rejected at the federal level.

---

Except that the original slates weren't rejected at the federal level, and the Trumpists revolted anyway.

---

You have a comprehension problem when it comes to history and constitutional process. The original slates were in contention until the moment Pence to certify the electoral vote as complete.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!

---

The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal

---

Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.

That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.

You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.

neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.

---

This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.

Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.

---

I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.

If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.

Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.

If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.

---

There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.

---

It is not insurrection to have that alternative slate ready to go in case the original slate is rejected at the federal level.

---

Except that the original slates weren't rejected at the federal level, and the Trumpists revolted anyway.

---

You have a comprehension problem when it comes to history and constitutional process. The original slates were in contention until the moment Pence to certify the electoral vote as complete.

---

Absolute nonsense.

Seriously, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!

---

The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal

---

Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.

That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.

You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.

neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.

---

This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.

Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.

---

I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.

If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.

Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.

If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.

---

There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.

---

It is not insurrection to have that alternative slate ready to go in case the original slate is rejected at the federal level.

---

Except that the original slates weren't rejected at the federal level, and the Trumpists revolted anyway.

---

You have a comprehension problem when it comes to history and constitutional process. The original slates were in contention until the moment Pence to certify the electoral vote as complete.

---

Absolute nonsense.

Seriously, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Actually, if you look at all the evidence, it is clear that there was a strong desire to overturn the election results. I do not believe that it was a coincidence that the these demonstrations occurred at the same time that Congress was certifying the election results. When I originally viewed the people storming the Capitol Building I believed these people crossed a line of acceptable behavior. Since then I have learned of the planning that was occurring in the White house before this event occurred and it is pretty suspicious how it all came together, and how it all fell apart.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Wanting to get votes thrown out because one thinks those votes are fraudulent isn't insurrection. It's something explicitly allowed by law!

---

The Trump lawyer who was behind the plan disagrees with you. He and Trump knew exactly what they were doing.

Eastman Told Trump That Pence Plan for Jan. 6 Was Illegal

---

Fighting certification of votes at the precinct level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the county level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the state level is not insurrection.
Fighting certification of votes at the federal level is not insurrection.
That the legal grounds for doing so at any given level might have been tenuous does not constitution insurrection.

That a robust debate occurred between the lawyers of POTUS and VPOTUS of what could and could not be justified under law does not constitute insurrection.

You are about to set precedent that most of US jurisprudence concerning elections is illegal.

neverTrumpism is an insidious disease of the mind which turns otherwise rational people into wild-eyed political nutjobs prepared to trash hundreds of years of legal and political tradition in order to obtain the scalp of a single golden haired POTUS.

---

This is the same illogical maneuver you tried to perform a few pages ago with the "no weapons = no insurrection" defense. This time you argue that there was no insurrection because the plan was allowed by law, and when that turns out not to be true, you substitute a new argument that US jurisprudence doesn't constitute insurrection. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting otherwise. But again, there was no "robust debate" by the time January 6 rolled around. Everyone on all sides knew the plan was illegal.

Your comment about trashing hundreds of years of legal tradition would be a glaring irony, but at this point it's par for the course. You're defending the kind of people who'd rather plead the Fifth than endorse the peaceful transfer of power.

---

I am confused (not an unusual state for me), where did the alternate slate of Electors come from? The States submit the Electors, not the Executive Branch.

If there are more than one slate of Electors, the State determines which one is the official, correct? So, this works both ways. Pence has no choice but to accept the Electors submitted.

Where did the conflict come from and who submitted the slate of Electors Trump wanted selected? They had to come from somewhere and someone HAD to tell Pence which ones were official Electors.

If there was a conflict, last time in the 1800's, a Committee was put together to determine the correct Electors. That obviously did not happen, so somebody from these States verified the Electors. I am not seeing the conflict or how Trump has anything to do with it.

---

There was no actual conflict. Each state submitted only one official slate of electors. The "alternate" slates were submitted by state representatives acting at Trump's behest but with no real authority.

---

It is not insurrection to have that alternative slate ready to go in case the original slate is rejected at the federal level.

---

Except that the original slates weren't rejected at the federal level, and the Trumpists revolted anyway.

---

You have a comprehension problem when it comes to history and constitutional process. The original slates were in contention until the moment Pence to certify the electoral vote as complete.

And then there was no revolt.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

AOC admits Capitol Police held the doors open on Jan 6 pic.twitter.com/CIql9rlbvE

— Jack Posobic 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 14, 2022

---

Don't you think AOC believes the Capitol police were working for Trump?

---

I don't assume anything, she told you the police officers let them in there's video evidence of as part of the Ashli Babbitt shooting with police officers with A.R.'s standing right there doing nothing as protesters vandalize the building. The police were doing little to repel them almost like they were instructed to.. Trump or Dem leadership, who am I to say

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

AOC admits Capitol Police held the doors open on Jan 6 pic.twitter.com/CIql9rlbvE

— Jack Posobic 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 14, 2022

---

Don't you think AOC believes the Capitol police were working for Trump?

---

I don't assume anything, she told you the police officers let them in there's video evidence of as part of the Ashli Babbitt shooting with police officers with A.R.'s standing right there doing nothing as protesters vandalize the building. The police were doing little to repel them almost like they were instructed to.. Trump or Dem leadership, who am I to say

---

Go to this story. Police were striving mightily to repel violent protesters

N.Y. men who pepper-sprayed officers on Jan. 6 sentenced to 44 months
The men led the first wave through police barricades, then body-surfed to a Capitol entrance to cause more mayhem

Two New York state men who led a mob that overwhelmed police at the perimeter of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 then bodysurfed over the top of the crowd at a building entrance and pepper-sprayed officers were both sentenced Friday to 44 months in prison.
Cody Mattice, 29, of Greece, N.Y., and James Mault, 30, of Brockport, N.Y., both wept as they stood before Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell and asked for leniency, apologizing for their actions and saying they hoped to return soon to their families and young children. But Howell noted that prosecutors had already cut them a reasonable deal by dropping charges that could have led to far more prison time, and she imposed the sentences requested by the government. Only four other Jan. 6 defendants have been sentenced to longer prison terms.
Text messages obtained by the FBI showed that Mattice and Mault planned for violence on Jan. 6, initially expecting resistance from antifa. They texted family members during the mayhem, and then congratulated each other in the days after the riot, which temporarily halted the certification of the presidential election.
Mattice was a stay-at-home dad and Mault was an iron worker when they began texting on Jan. 2 about driving to President Donald Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally on Jan. 6, discussing taking pepper spray, helmets, a baton and a high-powered fire extinguisher with them. Once in D.C., court records show, Mattice recorded video of Mault on the National Mall saying they were "getting ready to go march on Capitol Hill. … It's about to be nuts."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/15/mattice-mault-capitol-riot-sentenced/

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

AOC admits Capitol Police held the doors open on Jan 6 pic.twitter.com/CIql9rlbvE

— Jack Posobic 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 14, 2022

---

Don't you think AOC believes the Capitol police were working for Trump?

---

I don't assume anything, she told you the police officers let them in there's video evidence of as part of the Ashli Babbitt shooting with police officers with A.R.'s standing right there doing nothing as protesters vandalize the building. The police were doing little to repel them almost like they were instructed to.. Trump or Dem leadership, who am I to say

---

Go to this story. Police were striving mightily to repel violent protesters

N.Y. men who pepper-sprayed officers on Jan. 6 sentenced to 44 months
The men led the first wave through police barricades, then body-surfed to a Capitol entrance to cause more mayhem

Two New York state men who led a mob that overwhelmed police at the perimeter of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 then bodysurfed over the top of the crowd at a building entrance and pepper-sprayed officers were both sentenced Friday to 44 months in prison.
Cody Mattice, 29, of Greece, N.Y., and James Mault, 30, of Brockport, N.Y., both wept as they stood before Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell and asked for leniency, apologizing for their actions and saying they hoped to return soon to their families and young children. But Howell noted that prosecutors had already cut them a reasonable deal by dropping charges that could have led to far more prison time, and she imposed the sentences requested by the government. Only four other Jan. 6 defendants have been sentenced to longer prison terms.
Text messages obtained by the FBI showed that Mattice and Mault planned for violence on Jan. 6, initially expecting resistance from antifa. They texted family members during the mayhem, and then congratulated each other in the days after the riot, which temporarily halted the certification of the presidential election.
Mattice was a stay-at-home dad and Mault was an iron worker when they began texting on Jan. 2 about driving to President Donald Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally on Jan. 6, discussing taking pepper spray, helmets, a baton and a high-powered fire extinguisher with them. Once in D.C., court records show, Mattice recorded video of Mault on the National Mall saying they were "getting ready to go march on Capitol Hill. … It's about to be nuts."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/15/mattice-mault-capitol-riot-sentenced/

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

AOC admits Capitol Police held the doors open on Jan 6 pic.twitter.com/CIql9rlbvE

— Jack Posobic 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 14, 2022

---

Don't you think AOC believes the Capitol police were working for Trump?

---

I don't assume anything, she told you the police officers let them in there's video evidence of as part of the Ashli Babbitt shooting with police officers with A.R.'s standing right there doing nothing as protesters vandalize the building. The police were doing little to repel them almost like they were instructed to.. Trump or Dem leadership, who am I to say

---

Go to this story. Police were striving mightily to repel violent protesters

N.Y. men who pepper-sprayed officers on Jan. 6 sentenced to 44 months
The men led the first wave through police barricades, then body-surfed to a Capitol entrance to cause more mayhem

Two New York state men who led a mob that overwhelmed police at the perimeter of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 then bodysurfed over the top of the crowd at a building entrance and pepper-sprayed officers were both sentenced Friday to 44 months in prison.
Cody Mattice, 29, of Greece, N.Y., and James Mault, 30, of Brockport, N.Y., both wept as they stood before Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell and asked for leniency, apologizing for their actions and saying they hoped to return soon to their families and young children. But Howell noted that prosecutors had already cut them a reasonable deal by dropping charges that could have led to far more prison time, and she imposed the sentences requested by the government. Only four other Jan. 6 defendants have been sentenced to longer prison terms.
Text messages obtained by the FBI showed that Mattice and Mault planned for violence on Jan. 6, initially expecting resistance from antifa. They texted family members during the mayhem, and then congratulated each other in the days after the riot, which temporarily halted the certification of the presidential election.
Mattice was a stay-at-home dad and Mault was an iron worker when they began texting on Jan. 2 about driving to President Donald Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally on Jan. 6, discussing taking pepper spray, helmets, a baton and a high-powered fire extinguisher with them. Once in D.C., court records show, Mattice recorded video of Mault on the National Mall saying they were "getting ready to go march on Capitol Hill. … It's about to be nuts."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/15/mattice-mault-capitol-riot-sentenced/

---

sounds like a riot..

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

AOC admits Capitol Police held the doors open on Jan 6 pic.twitter.com/CIql9rlbvE

— Jack Posobic 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 14, 2022

---

Don't you think AOC believes the Capitol police were working for Trump?

---

I don't assume anything, she told you the police officers let them in there's video evidence of as part of the Ashli Babbitt shooting with police officers with A.R.'s standing right there doing nothing as protesters vandalize the building. The police were doing little to repel them almost like they were instructed to.. Trump or Dem leadership, who am I to say

---

Go to this story. Police were striving mightily to repel violent protesters

N.Y. men who pepper-sprayed officers on Jan. 6 sentenced to 44 months
The men led the first wave through police barricades, then body-surfed to a Capitol entrance to cause more mayhem

Two New York state men who led a mob that overwhelmed police at the perimeter of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 then bodysurfed over the top of the crowd at a building entrance and pepper-sprayed officers were both sentenced Friday to 44 months in prison.
Cody Mattice, 29, of Greece, N.Y., and James Mault, 30, of Brockport, N.Y., both wept as they stood before Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell and asked for leniency, apologizing for their actions and saying they hoped to return soon to their families and young children. But Howell noted that prosecutors had already cut them a reasonable deal by dropping charges that could have led to far more prison time, and she imposed the sentences requested by the government. Only four other Jan. 6 defendants have been sentenced to longer prison terms.
Text messages obtained by the FBI showed that Mattice and Mault planned for violence on Jan. 6, initially expecting resistance from antifa. They texted family members during the mayhem, and then congratulated each other in the days after the riot, which temporarily halted the certification of the presidential election.
Mattice was a stay-at-home dad and Mault was an iron worker when they began texting on Jan. 2 about driving to President Donald Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally on Jan. 6, discussing taking pepper spray, helmets, a baton and a high-powered fire extinguisher with them. Once in D.C., court records show, Mattice recorded video of Mault on the National Mall saying they were "getting ready to go march on Capitol Hill. … It's about to be nuts."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/15/mattice-mault-capitol-riot-sentenced/

---

sounds like a riot..

---

exactly. the J6 misinformationists are incapable of understanding that their posts over and over again refute their narrative.

44 months would be an unremarkable facet of the story it if the Antifa and BLM types had gotten the same treatment. As it stands, though, it merely proves the double standards of justice in America today.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

AOC admits Capitol Police held the doors open on Jan 6 pic.twitter.com/CIql9rlbvE

— Jack Posobic 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 14, 2022

---

Don't you think AOC believes the Capitol police were working for Trump?

---

I don't assume anything, she told you the police officers let them in there's video evidence of as part of the Ashli Babbitt shooting with police officers with A.R.'s standing right there doing nothing as protesters vandalize the building. The police were doing little to repel them almost like they were instructed to.. Trump or Dem leadership, who am I to say

---

Go to this story. Police were striving mightily to repel violent protesters

N.Y. men who pepper-sprayed officers on Jan. 6 sentenced to 44 months
The men led the first wave through police barricades, then body-surfed to a Capitol entrance to cause more mayhem

Two New York state men who led a mob that overwhelmed police at the perimeter of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 then bodysurfed over the top of the crowd at a building entrance and pepper-sprayed officers were both sentenced Friday to 44 months in prison.
Cody Mattice, 29, of Greece, N.Y., and James Mault, 30, of Brockport, N.Y., both wept as they stood before Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell and asked for leniency, apologizing for their actions and saying they hoped to return soon to their families and young children. But Howell noted that prosecutors had already cut them a reasonable deal by dropping charges that could have led to far more prison time, and she imposed the sentences requested by the government. Only four other Jan. 6 defendants have been sentenced to longer prison terms.
Text messages obtained by the FBI showed that Mattice and Mault planned for violence on Jan. 6, initially expecting resistance from antifa. They texted family members during the mayhem, and then congratulated each other in the days after the riot, which temporarily halted the certification of the presidential election.
Mattice was a stay-at-home dad and Mault was an iron worker when they began texting on Jan. 2 about driving to President Donald Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally on Jan. 6, discussing taking pepper spray, helmets, a baton and a high-powered fire extinguisher with them. Once in D.C., court records show, Mattice recorded video of Mault on the National Mall saying they were "getting ready to go march on Capitol Hill. … It's about to be nuts."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/15/mattice-mault-capitol-riot-sentenced/

---

sounds like a riot..

---

exactly. the J6 misinformationists are incapable of understanding that their posts over and over again refute their narrative.

44 months would be an unremarkable facet of the story it if the Antifa and BLM types had gotten the same treatment. As it stands, though, it merely proves the double standards of justice in America today.

---

I think there is a double standard and I don't defend the treatment of Antifa or BLM rioters.
Their treatment does not give the Capitol insurrectionists license to disrupt a Constitutionally mandated function of Congress. "Whataboutism" is strong in those arguments.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

When the prosecute the FBI agents for the michigan shenanigans, I will get behind prosecuting Trump for bringing a mob to washington DC.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

When the prosecute the FBI agents for the michigan shenanigans, I will get behind prosecuting Trump for bringing a mob to washington DC.

---

What happened in Michigan?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

When the prosecute the FBI agents for the michigan shenanigans, I will get behind prosecuting Trump for bringing a mob to washington DC.

---

What happened in Michigan?

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

When the prosecute the FBI agents for the michigan shenanigans, I will get behind prosecuting Trump for bringing a mob to washington DC.

---

What happened in Michigan?

---

The FBI was embarrassed by the outcome of the Mich Gov kidnapping federal trial that ended April of 2022, when jurors acquitted two alleged conspirators and failed to reach verdicts for the other two. It was a well-deserved rebuke of investigative methods that crossed the line between prevention and invention.

They literally created the problem..

Federal Judge Robert Jonker blocked defense attorneys from informing the jury of almost all the evidence of federal misconduct in the Whitmer case. Jury still sided with the defendants or failed to reach a verdict. The FBI and other federal agencies have been doing this stuff for years. they had as many as 12 informants that were paid to hatch and move the plan forward. The FBI paid people to create the problem.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

When the prosecute the FBI agents for the michigan shenanigans, I will get behind prosecuting Trump for bringing a mob to washington DC.

---

What happened in Michigan?

---

Some MAGA terrorists planned to kidnap the governor and start a civil war back in 2020. Two pleaded guilty, two were acquitted, and two are up for re-trial. Trumpkins drew the obvious conclusion -- that the rioters really weren't to blame for Jan. 6.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

When the prosecute the FBI agents for the michigan shenanigans, I will get behind prosecuting Trump for bringing a mob to washington DC.

---

What happened in Michigan?

---

Some MAGA terrorists planned to kidnap the governor and start a civil war back in 2020. Two pleaded guilty, two were acquitted, and two are up for re-trial. Trumpkins drew the obvious conclusion -- that the rioters really weren't to blame for Jan. 6.

---

Are you just forgetting to mention the entrapment the Feds engaged in?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

When the prosecute the FBI agents for the michigan shenanigans, I will get behind prosecuting Trump for bringing a mob to washington DC.

---

What happened in Michigan?

---

Some MAGA terrorists planned to kidnap the governor and start a civil war back in 2020. Two pleaded guilty, two were acquitted, and two are up for re-trial. Trumpkins drew the obvious conclusion -- that the rioters really weren't to blame for Jan. 6.

---

Are you just forgetting to mention the entrapment the Feds engaged in?

---

That will be for the jury to decide. The defense moved for dismissal on those grounds, but it was denied.

---