If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
The insurrection
10,545 Views |
199 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by 4th and Inches
It was insurrection. Period. It was the worst attack on our democracy since the civil. Oh, and the south started the civil war.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
End of discussion
One more thing. The riots were nothing more than peaceful protests and biden's spending package will cost zero.
Okay, now end of discussion.
Joined:
Aug 3, 2017
Posts:
1,448
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you believe the prosecutors it is because it is harder to convict sedition/insurrection/treason than the other felonies they have on camera.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
My guess is they are happy sending people to prison for a couple of years and won't pursue insurrection unless it's a targeted group or becomes a frequent occurrence.
Of course there is also the worry that the defense will declare them mentally incompetent since they belong to maga.
A Biden sycophant insulting the intelligence of others based on their voting habits is the height of comedy.clubhi said:If you believe the prosecutors it is because it is harder to convict sedition/insurrection/treason than the other felonies they have on camera.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
My guess is they are happy sending people to prison for a couple of years and won't pursue insurrection unless it's a targeted group or becomes a frequent occurrence.
Of course there is also the worry that the defense will declare them mentally incompetent since they belong to maga.
The short answer is that Trump gave them legal cover. Their actions easily fit the charge of sedition, but it would be difficult to prove intent because the rioters believed they were acting on the president's orders. At least that's the opinion of Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who handled the last major seditious conspiracy case in the US.
They don't fit the definition of sedition.Sam Lowry said:
The short answer is that Trump gave them legal cover. Their actions easily fit the charge of sedition, but it would be difficult to prove intent because the rioters believed they were acting on the president's orders. At least that's the opinion of Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who handled the last major seditious conspiracy case in the US.
Most of the plea deals have been for misdemeanor "trespassing" and "parading."
Congress is sitting on 14,000 hours of video footage. When you hold the truths on video, you don't refuse to release it.
Joined:
Aug 3, 2017
Posts:
1,448
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can you pop a wheelie on your walmart scooter?Wangchung said:A Biden sycophant insulting the intelligence of others based on their voting habits is the height of comedy.clubhi said:If you believe the prosecutors it is because it is harder to convict sedition/insurrection/treason than the other felonies they have on camera.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
My guess is they are happy sending people to prison for a couple of years and won't pursue insurrection unless it's a targeted group or becomes a frequent occurrence.
Of course there is also the worry that the defense will declare them mentally incompetent since they belong to maga.
No but I can jump five bikes with it and steal yo girlfriend.clubhi said:Can you pop a wheelie on your walmart scooter?Wangchung said:A Biden sycophant insulting the intelligence of others based on their voting habits is the height of comedy.clubhi said:If you believe the prosecutors it is because it is harder to convict sedition/insurrection/treason than the other felonies they have on camera.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
My guess is they are happy sending people to prison for a couple of years and won't pursue insurrection unless it's a targeted group or becomes a frequent occurrence.
Of course there is also the worry that the defense will declare them mentally incompetent since they belong to maga.
Girlfriend ?Wangchung said:No but I can jump five bikes with it and steal yo girlfriend.clubhi said:Can you pop a wheelie on your walmart scooter?Wangchung said:A Biden sycophant insulting the intelligence of others based on their voting habits is the height of comedy.clubhi said:If you believe the prosecutors it is because it is harder to convict sedition/insurrection/treason than the other felonies they have on camera.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
My guess is they are happy sending people to prison for a couple of years and won't pursue insurrection unless it's a targeted group or becomes a frequent occurrence.
Of course there is also the worry that the defense will declare them mentally incompetent since they belong to maga.
You jest .
I've tried to keep posting this, but just Google it. It's very difficult to get a conviction due to the wording of the laws concerning insurrection/treason, and most of the time the government does not even try. The 1st Amendment further complicates it.
It was an insurrection by the definition of the word, as if either party cares what words mean, when they can just reshape the definitions to fit their purposes.
It was an insurrection by the definition of the word, as if either party cares what words mean, when they can just reshape the definitions to fit their purposes.
The President literally said, "peacefully march."Sam Lowry said:
The short answer is that Trump gave them legal cover. Their actions easily fit the charge of sedition, but it would be difficult to prove intent because the rioters believed they were acting on the president's orders. At least that's the opinion of Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who handled the last major seditious conspiracy case in the US.
Also, the videos released show people milling about and taking videos.
I'm not agreeing with their actions but an insurrection, it was not.
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
He said a lot of things over a couple of months. The point isn't what you or I believe, but what they believed.fadskier said:The President literally said, "peacefully march."Sam Lowry said:
The short answer is that Trump gave them legal cover. Their actions easily fit the charge of sedition, but it would be difficult to prove intent because the rioters believed they were acting on the president's orders. At least that's the opinion of Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who handled the last major seditious conspiracy case in the US.
Also, the videos released show people milling about and taking videos.
I'm not agreeing with their actions but an insurrection, it was not.
or it will come out it was orchestrated by the FBI, the washington leadership and its all theater as seen on video. Oh hey, look at this perfectly placed 2x4 .. thank goodness somebody just randomly left it here, a stroke of luck Maga friend..clubhi said:If you believe the prosecutors it is because it is harder to convict sedition/insurrection/treason than the other felonies they have on camera.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
My guess is they are happy sending people to prison for a couple of years and won't pursue insurrection unless it's a targeted group or becomes a frequent occurrence.
Of course there is also the worry that the defense will declare them mentally incompetent since they belong to maga.
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
watch your pronouns, they might get offendedWangchung said:No but I can jump five bikes with it and steal yo girlfriend.clubhi said:Can you pop a wheelie on your walmart scooter?Wangchung said:A Biden sycophant insulting the intelligence of others based on their voting habits is the height of comedy.clubhi said:If you believe the prosecutors it is because it is harder to convict sedition/insurrection/treason than the other felonies they have on camera.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
My guess is they are happy sending people to prison for a couple of years and won't pursue insurrection unless it's a targeted group or becomes a frequent occurrence.
Of course there is also the worry that the defense will declare them mentally incompetent since they belong to maga.
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
We can't control what people believe and people are held accountable for their own actions. Your actions scant be blamed on someone else's words.Sam Lowry said:He said a lot of things over a couple of months. The point isn't what you or I believe, but what they believed.fadskier said:The President literally said, "peacefully march."Sam Lowry said:
The short answer is that Trump gave them legal cover. Their actions easily fit the charge of sedition, but it would be difficult to prove intent because the rioters believed they were acting on the president's orders. At least that's the opinion of Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who handled the last major seditious conspiracy case in the US.
Also, the videos released show people milling about and taking videos.
I'm not agreeing with their actions but an insurrection, it was not.
Despite what they believed, they are not being found guilty of an insurrection but rather unlawful entry and trespassing.
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
Not despite. Because of.fadskier said:We can't control what people believe and people are held accountable for their own actions. Your actions scant be blamed on someone else's words.Sam Lowry said:He said a lot of things over a couple of months. The point isn't what you or I believe, but what they believed.fadskier said:The President literally said, "peacefully march."Sam Lowry said:
The short answer is that Trump gave them legal cover. Their actions easily fit the charge of sedition, but it would be difficult to prove intent because the rioters believed they were acting on the president's orders. At least that's the opinion of Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who handled the last major seditious conspiracy case in the US.
Also, the videos released show people milling about and taking videos.
I'm not agreeing with their actions but an insurrection, it was not.
Despite what they believed, they are not being found guilty of an insurrection but rather unlawful entry and trespassing.
Because it was only an insurrection to the extent it can be used as a cudgel for political theater.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
Technically one could define it as an insurrection, but then if we lived in an intellectually honest culture we would have to acknowledge we've had about 100,000 insurrections since 2020.
Harrison Bergeron said:Because it was only an insurrection to the extent it can be used as a cudgel for political theater.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
Technically one could define it as an insurrection, but then if we lived in an intellectually honest culture we would have to acknowledge we've had about 100,000 insurrections since 2020.
We have had many insurrectionists, but not in a long time has a group of 1,000 of them breached the Capitol while Congress was in session.
It's one thing to vaguely fit the definition by egging your local mayor's house, and another to storm the Capitol.
Insurrection, 100%. You can't honestly call it anything else.
Egging your local mayor's house... is that what was happening for months last year?Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Because it was only an insurrection to the extent it can be used as a cudgel for political theater.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
Technically one could define it as an insurrection, but then if we lived in an intellectually honest culture we would have to acknowledge we've had about 100,000 insurrections since 2020.
We have had many insurrectionists, but not in a long time has a group of 1,000 of them breached the Capitol while Congress was in session.
It's one thing to vaguely fit the definition by egging your local mayor's house, and another to storm the Capitol.
Insurrection, 100%. You can't honestly call it anything else.
Be honest, they did much more than egg the local mayor's house.Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Because it was only an insurrection to the extent it can be used as a cudgel for political theater.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
Technically one could define it as an insurrection, but then if we lived in an intellectually honest culture we would have to acknowledge we've had about 100,000 insurrections since 2020.
We have had many insurrectionists, but not in a long time has a group of 1,000 of them breached the Capitol while Congress was in session.
It's one thing to vaguely fit the definition by egging your local mayor's house, and another to storm the Capitol.
Insurrection, 100%. You can't honestly call it anything else.
This is a long, excuse-filled way of saying there was no insurrection.clubhi said:If you believe the prosecutors it is because it is harder to convict sedition/insurrection/treason than the other felonies they have on camera.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
My guess is they are happy sending people to prison for a couple of years and won't pursue insurrection unless it's a targeted group or becomes a frequent occurrence.
Of course there is also the worry that the defense will declare them mentally incompetent since they belong to maga.
Rawhide said:
Be honest, they did much more than egg the local mayor's house.
I've been consistent on this. There was definitely an insurrection in Portland, and other places. Small groups of zealous idiots.
Fair enough. It's subjective, so no sense arguing potato-tomato, and there is too much political hay to be made to really have an honest accounting. If we had an intellectually honest society we could both condemn those that trespassed but not act like it was some sore of realistic threat to democracy or anything else. You can just use Occam's Razor and conclude it would be odd that anyone thought they could take over the U.S. without a weapon. But I get much like the Russia hoax so much has been invested in another "Big Lie."Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Because it was only an insurrection to the extent it can be used as a cudgel for political theater.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
Technically one could define it as an insurrection, but then if we lived in an intellectually honest culture we would have to acknowledge we've had about 100,000 insurrections since 2020.
We have had many insurrectionists, but not in a long time has a group of 1,000 of them breached the Capitol while Congress was in session.
It's one thing to vaguely fit the definition by egging your local mayor's house, and another to storm the Capitol.
Insurrection, 100%. You can't honestly call it anything else.
The OP's not wrong. If anyone actually committed a treasonous act or an act of insurrection, they would rightfully be hung on the steps of the Capitol.
Trump had the weapons. They meant to provide the pretext for him to use them.Harrison Bergeron said:Fair enough. It's subjective, so no sense arguing potato-tomato, and there is too much political hay to be made to really have an honest accounting. If we had an intellectually honest society we could both condemn those that trespassed but not act like it was some sore of realistic threat to democracy or anything else. You can just use Occam's Razor and conclude it would be odd that anyone thought they could take over the U.S. without a weapon. But I get much like the Russia hoax so much has been invested in another "Big Lie."Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Because it was only an insurrection to the extent it can be used as a cudgel for political theater.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
Technically one could define it as an insurrection, but then if we lived in an intellectually honest culture we would have to acknowledge we've had about 100,000 insurrections since 2020.
We have had many insurrectionists, but not in a long time has a group of 1,000 of them breached the Capitol while Congress was in session.
It's one thing to vaguely fit the definition by egging your local mayor's house, and another to storm the Capitol.
Insurrection, 100%. You can't honestly call it anything else.
The OP's not wrong. If anyone actually committed a treasonous act or an act of insurrection, they would rightfully be hung on the steps of the Capitol.
Hanging is for treason. Insurrection can get as little as two years, depending on the severity of the offense, which is pretty consistent with what they're seeking in these cases.
Harrison Bergeron said:Fair enough. It's subjective, so no sense arguing potato-tomato, and there is too much political hay to be made to really have an honest accounting. If we had an intellectually honest society we could both condemn those that trespassed but not act like it was some sore of realistic threat to democracy or anything else. You can just use Occam's Razor and conclude it would be odd that anyone thought they could take over the U.S. without a weapon. But I get much like the Russia hoax so much has been invested in another "Big Lie."Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Because it was only an insurrection to the extent it can be used as a cudgel for political theater.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
Technically one could define it as an insurrection, but then if we lived in an intellectually honest culture we would have to acknowledge we've had about 100,000 insurrections since 2020.
We have had many insurrectionists, but not in a long time has a group of 1,000 of them breached the Capitol while Congress was in session.
It's one thing to vaguely fit the definition by egging your local mayor's house, and another to storm the Capitol.
Insurrection, 100%. You can't honestly call it anything else.
The OP's not wrong. If anyone actually committed a treasonous act or an act of insurrection, they would rightfully be hung on the steps of the Capitol.
I agree they posed no real threat to democracy. If they had gotten ahold of Pence or Pelosi even, and killed one of them, it would have put a truckload of nails in Trump's political coffin, ended the integrity of the election debate right then and there.
I also think they represent a larger threat to democracy though, because there are not just 1,000, but tens of millions who no longer trust our democracy. If they will believe the lie that the election was stolen, they will believe other lies, and our Constitution basically depends on the populace to buy into it, to work.
But I appreciate your response. I actually don't mind people who question how much of an insurrection it was, but too many idiot posters here want to pretend it was just a regular ole photo op, which it was not. I'm just here to piss in their Cheerios.
To talk like the "Big Lie" is what made these people mistrust our system as it stands now is to ignore a lot of recent history in the politics department. Tens of millions already had a great deal of mistrust before 2020.Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Fair enough. It's subjective, so no sense arguing potato-tomato, and there is too much political hay to be made to really have an honest accounting. If we had an intellectually honest society we could both condemn those that trespassed but not act like it was some sore of realistic threat to democracy or anything else. You can just use Occam's Razor and conclude it would be odd that anyone thought they could take over the U.S. without a weapon. But I get much like the Russia hoax so much has been invested in another "Big Lie."Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Because it was only an insurrection to the extent it can be used as a cudgel for political theater.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
Technically one could define it as an insurrection, but then if we lived in an intellectually honest culture we would have to acknowledge we've had about 100,000 insurrections since 2020.
We have had many insurrectionists, but not in a long time has a group of 1,000 of them breached the Capitol while Congress was in session.
It's one thing to vaguely fit the definition by egging your local mayor's house, and another to storm the Capitol.
Insurrection, 100%. You can't honestly call it anything else.
The OP's not wrong. If anyone actually committed a treasonous act or an act of insurrection, they would rightfully be hung on the steps of the Capitol.
I agree they posed no real threat to democracy. If they had gotten ahold of Pence or Pelosi even, and killed one of them, it would have put a truckload of nails in Trump's political coffin, ended the integrity of the election debate right then and there.
I also think they represent a larger threat to democracy though, because there are not just 1,000, but tens of millions who no longer trust our democracy. If they will believe the lie that the election was stolen, they will believe other lies, and our Constitution basically depends on the populace to buy into it, to work.
But I appreciate your response. I actually don't mind people who question how much of an insurrection it was, but too many idiot posters here want to pretend it was just a regular ole photo op, which it was not. I'm just here to piss in their Cheerios.
The Civil Rights movement has never had trust in it, and still doesn't today.EatMoreSalmon said:To talk like the "Big Lie" is what made these people mistrust our system as it stands now is to ignore a lot of recent history in the politics department. Tens of millions already had a great deal of mistrust before 2020.Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Fair enough. It's subjective, so no sense arguing potato-tomato, and there is too much political hay to be made to really have an honest accounting. If we had an intellectually honest society we could both condemn those that trespassed but not act like it was some sore of realistic threat to democracy or anything else. You can just use Occam's Razor and conclude it would be odd that anyone thought they could take over the U.S. without a weapon. But I get much like the Russia hoax so much has been invested in another "Big Lie."Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Because it was only an insurrection to the extent it can be used as a cudgel for political theater.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
Technically one could define it as an insurrection, but then if we lived in an intellectually honest culture we would have to acknowledge we've had about 100,000 insurrections since 2020.
We have had many insurrectionists, but not in a long time has a group of 1,000 of them breached the Capitol while Congress was in session.
It's one thing to vaguely fit the definition by egging your local mayor's house, and another to storm the Capitol.
Insurrection, 100%. You can't honestly call it anything else.
The OP's not wrong. If anyone actually committed a treasonous act or an act of insurrection, they would rightfully be hung on the steps of the Capitol.
I agree they posed no real threat to democracy. If they had gotten ahold of Pence or Pelosi even, and killed one of them, it would have put a truckload of nails in Trump's political coffin, ended the integrity of the election debate right then and there.
I also think they represent a larger threat to democracy though, because there are not just 1,000, but tens of millions who no longer trust our democracy. If they will believe the lie that the election was stolen, they will believe other lies, and our Constitution basically depends on the populace to buy into it, to work.
But I appreciate your response. I actually don't mind people who question how much of an insurrection it was, but too many idiot posters here want to pretend it was just a regular ole photo op, which it was not. I'm just here to piss in their Cheerios.
Thank you and back at you. It is refreshing to have a discussion that is more than tribal talking points.Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Fair enough. It's subjective, so no sense arguing potato-tomato, and there is too much political hay to be made to really have an honest accounting. If we had an intellectually honest society we could both condemn those that trespassed but not act like it was some sore of realistic threat to democracy or anything else. You can just use Occam's Razor and conclude it would be odd that anyone thought they could take over the U.S. without a weapon. But I get much like the Russia hoax so much has been invested in another "Big Lie."Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Because it was only an insurrection to the extent it can be used as a cudgel for political theater.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
Technically one could define it as an insurrection, but then if we lived in an intellectually honest culture we would have to acknowledge we've had about 100,000 insurrections since 2020.
We have had many insurrectionists, but not in a long time has a group of 1,000 of them breached the Capitol while Congress was in session.
It's one thing to vaguely fit the definition by egging your local mayor's house, and another to storm the Capitol.
Insurrection, 100%. You can't honestly call it anything else.
The OP's not wrong. If anyone actually committed a treasonous act or an act of insurrection, they would rightfully be hung on the steps of the Capitol.
I agree they posed no real threat to democracy. If they had gotten ahold of Pence or Pelosi even, and killed one of them, it would have put a truckload of nails in Trump's political coffin, ended the integrity of the election debate right then and there.
I also think they represent a larger threat to democracy though, because there are not just 1,000, but tens of millions who no longer trust our democracy. If they will believe the lie that the election was stolen, they will believe other lies, and our Constitution basically depends on the populace to buy into it, to work.
But I appreciate your response. I actually don't mind people who question how much of an insurrection it was, but too many idiot posters here want to pretend it was just a regular ole photo op, which it was not. I'm just here to piss in their Cheerios.
Here is my quibble with your point. I agree with you 100% that it is a bad place when so many people do not trust our elections. However, it is genuinely hard for me to take the hysteria from the Democrats when they told us for four years that Trump was illegitimate and Russia stole the 2016 election.
I am old enough to remember when 60 Minutes was doing specials on how easy it is to hack or voting machines with the implication that "it really would not be hard for Russian hackers to impact the results." A similar paper came out of University of Michigan (I believe) talking about the vulnerability of our elections. Then in 2020 suddenly are elections are perfect and beyond reproach? Please.
The Democrats challenged the 2000, 2004, and 2016 election to varying degrees as "stolen" without evidence, so forgive me if I'm rolling my eyes about all the hysterics they claim now because of Trump's stupidity. I may fail, but I try to have principles and stick to those regardless of whose jersey it helps or hurts, and the continued disingenuous nature from the Democrats is IMHO a much bigger threat do democracy. And it is not limited to this issue. Part of our failure as a covid response has been the constant moving goalposts based on nothing more than insincere political theater.
I have not seen any evidence that the 2020 (or any election) was "stolen." However, I also have seen enough shenanigans and fraud to have a rational suspicion that results would meet a six-sigma threshold. This is exacerbated by Democrats' continued, passionate opposition to any effort that would improve election integrity. The right to vote is not only the right to cast a ballot but also that every person's vote counts the same. It is irrational to oppose measures that would both expand the franchise and ensure its integrity. There is only one reason a party would oppose either of those.
It is a pipe dream, but I would love to see the results of a 100%, perfectly voted election defined as only eligible voters voted once and voted consciously for a candidate. Would it have made an impact - no idea.
Democrats aside, why not listen to Republicans? Many of us who defended Trump from the Russia hysteria are no less appalled by his recent behavior.Harrison Bergeron said:Here is my quibble with your point. I agree with you 100% that it is a bad place when so many people do not trust our elections. However, it is genuinely hard for me to take the hysteria from the Democrats when they told us for four years that Trump was illegitimate and Russia stole the 2016 election.Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Fair enough. It's subjective, so no sense arguing potato-tomato, and there is too much political hay to be made to really have an honest accounting. If we had an intellectually honest society we could both condemn those that trespassed but not act like it was some sore of realistic threat to democracy or anything else. You can just use Occam's Razor and conclude it would be odd that anyone thought they could take over the U.S. without a weapon. But I get much like the Russia hoax so much has been invested in another "Big Lie."Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Because it was only an insurrection to the extent it can be used as a cudgel for political theater.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
Technically one could define it as an insurrection, but then if we lived in an intellectually honest culture we would have to acknowledge we've had about 100,000 insurrections since 2020.
We have had many insurrectionists, but not in a long time has a group of 1,000 of them breached the Capitol while Congress was in session.
It's one thing to vaguely fit the definition by egging your local mayor's house, and another to storm the Capitol.
Insurrection, 100%. You can't honestly call it anything else.
The OP's not wrong. If anyone actually committed a treasonous act or an act of insurrection, they would rightfully be hung on the steps of the Capitol.
I agree they posed no real threat to democracy. If they had gotten ahold of Pence or Pelosi even, and killed one of them, it would have put a truckload of nails in Trump's political coffin, ended the integrity of the election debate right then and there.
I also think they represent a larger threat to democracy though, because there are not just 1,000, but tens of millions who no longer trust our democracy. If they will believe the lie that the election was stolen, they will believe other lies, and our Constitution basically depends on the populace to buy into it, to work.
But I appreciate your response. I actually don't mind people who question how much of an insurrection it was, but too many idiot posters here want to pretend it was just a regular ole photo op, which it was not. I'm just here to piss in their Cheerios.
Doc Holliday said:They don't fit the definition of sedition.Sam Lowry said:
The short answer is that Trump gave them legal cover. Their actions easily fit the charge of sedition, but it would be difficult to prove intent because the rioters believed they were acting on the president's orders. At least that's the opinion of Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who handled the last major seditious conspiracy case in the US.
Most of the plea deals have been for misdemeanor "trespassing" and "parading."
Congress is sitting on 14,000 hours of video footage. When you hold the truths on video, you don't refuse to release it.
Dude, you completely missed Sam's point.
And Al Capone went down on tax charges because you charge to get a conviction. Is he remembered as a tax cheat or a mobster?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Harrison Bergeron said:
This is exacerbated by Democrats' continued, passionate opposition to any effort that would improve election integrity. The right to vote is not only the right to cast a ballot but also that every person's vote counts the same. It is irrational to oppose measures that would both expand the franchise and ensure its integrity. There is only one reason a party would oppose either of those.
It is a pipe dream, but I would love to see the results of a 100%, perfectly voted election defined as only eligible voters voted once and voted consciously for a candidate. Would it have made an impact - no idea.
Neither party is interested in election integrity. And by that I mean elimination of the +/- 3% error rate in virtually every election. Every election 3% is the difference in some race, somewhere. Everything begins with getting an accurate count.
Instead, we get moved polls, reduced access, and a minute amount of jurisdictions willing to go the ranked ballot route.
If I missed a Republican initiative to deal with that voting error issue please let me know, I'd be more than happy to slap somebody on the back on this issue.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Then why are they not being charged? I'm not asking for opinions here. and I am not supporting what those few people did...just listing the facts that they are not being charged with anything but unlawful entry and trespassing.Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Because it was only an insurrection to the extent it can be used as a cudgel for political theater.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
Technically one could define it as an insurrection, but then if we lived in an intellectually honest culture we would have to acknowledge we've had about 100,000 insurrections since 2020.
We have had many insurrectionists, but not in a long time has a group of 1,000 of them breached the Capitol while Congress was in session.
It's one thing to vaguely fit the definition by egging your local mayor's house, and another to storm the Capitol.
Insurrection, 100%. You can't honestly call it anything else.
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
HIs point is null by the fact that they can't prove sedition.quash said:Doc Holliday said:They don't fit the definition of sedition.Sam Lowry said:
The short answer is that Trump gave them legal cover. Their actions easily fit the charge of sedition, but it would be difficult to prove intent because the rioters believed they were acting on the president's orders. At least that's the opinion of Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who handled the last major seditious conspiracy case in the US.
Most of the plea deals have been for misdemeanor "trespassing" and "parading."
Congress is sitting on 14,000 hours of video footage. When you hold the truths on video, you don't refuse to release it.
Dude, you completely missed Sam's point.
And Al Capone went down on tax charges because you charge to get a conviction. Is he remembered as a tax cheat or a mobster?
Those are not mutually exclusive. I can be both appalled by Trump's post-election behavior and not by into the hysterics that the Capitol riot "was the greatest threat to democracy since the Civil War."Sam Lowry said:Democrats aside, why not listen to Republicans? Many of us who defended Trump from the Russia hysteria are no less appalled by his recent behavior.Harrison Bergeron said:Here is my quibble with your point. I agree with you 100% that it is a bad place when so many people do not trust our elections. However, it is genuinely hard for me to take the hysteria from the Democrats when they told us for four years that Trump was illegitimate and Russia stole the 2016 election.Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Fair enough. It's subjective, so no sense arguing potato-tomato, and there is too much political hay to be made to really have an honest accounting. If we had an intellectually honest society we could both condemn those that trespassed but not act like it was some sore of realistic threat to democracy or anything else. You can just use Occam's Razor and conclude it would be odd that anyone thought they could take over the U.S. without a weapon. But I get much like the Russia hoax so much has been invested in another "Big Lie."Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Because it was only an insurrection to the extent it can be used as a cudgel for political theater.fadskier said:
If January 6 was an insurrection, why has not one been charged with that? So far it's unlawful entry and trespassing.
Technically one could define it as an insurrection, but then if we lived in an intellectually honest culture we would have to acknowledge we've had about 100,000 insurrections since 2020.
We have had many insurrectionists, but not in a long time has a group of 1,000 of them breached the Capitol while Congress was in session.
It's one thing to vaguely fit the definition by egging your local mayor's house, and another to storm the Capitol.
Insurrection, 100%. You can't honestly call it anything else.
The OP's not wrong. If anyone actually committed a treasonous act or an act of insurrection, they would rightfully be hung on the steps of the Capitol.
I agree they posed no real threat to democracy. If they had gotten ahold of Pence or Pelosi even, and killed one of them, it would have put a truckload of nails in Trump's political coffin, ended the integrity of the election debate right then and there.
I also think they represent a larger threat to democracy though, because there are not just 1,000, but tens of millions who no longer trust our democracy. If they will believe the lie that the election was stolen, they will believe other lies, and our Constitution basically depends on the populace to buy into it, to work.
But I appreciate your response. I actually don't mind people who question how much of an insurrection it was, but too many idiot posters here want to pretend it was just a regular ole photo op, which it was not. I'm just here to piss in their Cheerios.
Okay. Not sure you're correct, but both parties should be.quash said:Harrison Bergeron said:
This is exacerbated by Democrats' continued, passionate opposition to any effort that would improve election integrity. The right to vote is not only the right to cast a ballot but also that every person's vote counts the same. It is irrational to oppose measures that would both expand the franchise and ensure its integrity. There is only one reason a party would oppose either of those.
It is a pipe dream, but I would love to see the results of a 100%, perfectly voted election defined as only eligible voters voted once and voted consciously for a candidate. Would it have made an impact - no idea.
Neither party is interested in election integrity. And by that I mean elimination of the +/- 3% error rate in virtually every election. Every election 3% is the difference in some race, somewhere. Everything begins with getting an accurate count.
Instead, we get moved polls, reduced access, and a minute amount of jurisdictions willing to go the ranked ballot route.
If I missed a Republican initiative to deal with that voting error issue please let me know, I'd be more than happy to slap somebody on the back on this issue.