RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Don't know who "they" is ... but if it was a riot (and not just a peaceful protest), it sure wasn't peaceful.
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Don't know who "they" is ... but if it was a riot (and not just a peaceful protest), it sure wasn't peaceful.
danthewolf00
Veteran Expediter
It's a riot when people get shot and buildings get set on fire.Don't know who "they" is ... but if it was a riot (and not just a peaceful protest), it sure wasn't peaceful.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Quite possibly ... except for any peaceful parts which may have preceded events which occurred later.
Just like the Jan 6th rally on the ellipse was peaceful ... but then later some folks from that decided they were gonna "STORM !!!"
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Watched the livestream of Attorney General Garland's address he gave today to the Department of Justice on the matter of January 6th 2021 and it was outstanding, set just the right tone:
While many (on both sides) have been and are impatient for DOJ to take action, AG Garland correctly noted that an investigation as large as this one necessarily takes a lot of time and resources and would not be finished in a short amount of time.
Additionally, he clarified that DOJ was fully committed to hold all January 6th perpetrators - at any level - accountable under the law.
While many (on both sides) have been and are impatient for DOJ to take action, AG Garland correctly noted that an investigation as large as this one necessarily takes a lot of time and resources and would not be finished in a short amount of time.
Additionally, he clarified that DOJ was fully committed to hold all January 6th perpetrators - at any level - accountable under the law.
So now that Trump has come out in support of the vaccines, do you that will lead to a net gain or loss of supporters? Looks like to me he is not going to run for office in 2024, if he was planning on it, he would not have said what he did, he ticked off a big faction of his supporters.
He has always been in support of the vaccines. Lol
He's also responsible for implementing the plan to develop and approve the covid vaccines in record time. Let's remember the difference between being pro-vaccine and anti-mandate.
Exactly. When he had “come out in support of the vaccines” he also mentioned that he wasn’t for mandating it either.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Too early to really say ... but if I had to guess, I'd say net loss.
One thing is for sure: it's already sparked an intra-party civil war within the Republican Party.
I suspect his plans are fluid at this point.
Kamala Harris, you remember her, said January 6 is a date that will live in infamy, right along side of Dec 7, 1941 and 9/11, because of the insurrection that put democracy itself in jeopardy.
Bwaaahaaa
It wasn't an insurrection, or even an attempted insurrection. It was a protest that got out of hand and turned into a riot. And we know that to be true, unquestionably, because not a single person involved in the protest or the riot has been charged with, what's it called again, oh yeah, insurrection.
Another date that should live in infamy, but doesn't, is March 1, 1954, when a true blue genuine insurrection occurred at the Capitol when a group of Puerto Ricans shot five Congressmen in an attempt to overthrow the government and usurp Democracy. All 5 were charged and convicted of, what's it called again, oh yeah, insurrection.
They were all given what amounted to life sentences in prison, but Jimmy Carter commuted their sentences and they all returned home to Puerto Rico.
Everyone who broke the law at the Capitol on January 6th should be charged with violating the law, but I don't care how many times people call it an insurrection, unless and until someone is charged and convicted of insurrection, it wasn't an insurrection.
Facts matter. Emotional gobbledygook doesn't.
Bwaaahaaa
It wasn't an insurrection, or even an attempted insurrection. It was a protest that got out of hand and turned into a riot. And we know that to be true, unquestionably, because not a single person involved in the protest or the riot has been charged with, what's it called again, oh yeah, insurrection.
Another date that should live in infamy, but doesn't, is March 1, 1954, when a true blue genuine insurrection occurred at the Capitol when a group of Puerto Ricans shot five Congressmen in an attempt to overthrow the government and usurp Democracy. All 5 were charged and convicted of, what's it called again, oh yeah, insurrection.
They were all given what amounted to life sentences in prison, but Jimmy Carter commuted their sentences and they all returned home to Puerto Rico.
Everyone who broke the law at the Capitol on January 6th should be charged with violating the law, but I don't care how many times people call it an insurrection, unless and until someone is charged and convicted of insurrection, it wasn't an insurrection.
Facts matter. Emotional gobbledygook doesn't.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Well, no.
The actual history of it, is a bit more complicated than you suggest:
How Donald Trump Became an Anti-Vaxxer
Of course, I realize that the simplistic narrative that you suggest does serve a particular political agenda.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
First, that presumes that all charges that will be laid, have been laid ... or even unsealed.
That's clearly not the case ... as James Brooks of Tennessee whose case was only unsealed today - can attest.
Further presumes that DOJ will charge something that might harder to prove and convict on in lieu of something that is easier to convict on but carries a a significant enough sentence ... which may be plenty enough to serve as a deterrent.
Remember:
Al Capone wasn't convicted of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre ... but that doesn't mean he wasn't responsible for orchestrating it or that it didn't occur.
Al Capone Convicted On This Day In 1931 After Boasting, ‘They Can’t Collect Legal Taxes From Illegal Money’
That isn't how it works in the real world.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Great article by Zoe Tillman of Buzzfeed which covers where things stand now, in terms of those who participated in the January 6th insurrection.
It shows that - despite the bitter howls of protestation by some - in most cases, barring some mitigating factor, that the justice being meted out for those who did not commit violence or property damage is actually very mild, in light of the serious nature of the event:
So You Admitted To Participating In The Insurrection. Now What?
It shows that - despite the bitter howls of protestation by some - in most cases, barring some mitigating factor, that the justice being meted out for those who did not commit violence or property damage is actually very mild, in light of the serious nature of the event:
So You Admitted To Participating In The Insurrection. Now What?
"The vaccines" in the context of this discussion are the COVID vaccines. Reading is fundamental.Well, no.
The actual history of it, is a bit more complicated than you suggest:
How Donald Trump Became an Anti-Vaxxer
Of course, I realize that the simplistic narrative that you suggest does serve a particular political agenda.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
It's a safe bet to say that The Yam ... errr ... I mean leopard ... didn't change it's spots.
Remember, we already know that Trump knew how bad COVID potentially was ... and chose to lie about it to the American people.
It's also a safe bet to say that any support that he had for COVID vaccines was purely transactional ... since it could potentially accrue to his personal benefit.
The incompetence and malfeasance committed in the early COVID response is largely well-known and documented, although I wouldn't entirely foreclose the possibility of more on that coming out eventually.
A new congressional report shows how Donald Trump sabotaged the country’s early response to COVID.
Select Subcommittee’s Year-End Staff Report Highlights Oversight Work, Releases New Findings From Ongoing Investigations
Yes it is.
Do more of it.
No it doesn't. The only thing it presumes is, to date, no one has been charged or convicted of insurrection. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.
It doesn't presume that, either. The only thing it presumes is, to date, no one has been charged or convicted of insurrection. Anything beyond that is pure speculation. Especially in light of the fact that historical precedent shows when an insurrection occurs, it's dead-simple to charge and prove insurrection, complete with convictions.
AL Capone was never charged in the St Valentine's Day Massacre. Believing that he had something to do with it is nothing more than presumption. Faith. Belief. Not sure what AL Capone has to do with a riot at the Capitol that played out on video and live television, though. If the St Valentine's Day Massacre somebody would have been charged and convicted, and not for trespassing or some other gymnastic legal charge that's easier to prove.
My wife and I watch this crime show called “See No Evil”. It is about a crime(usually murder) that is investigated by local police depts. using the assistance from surveillance cameras mounted near crime scenes and other areas where the suspect may have been videotaped purchasing evidence to a crime or destroying evidence. Investigators often piece together evidence often gathered from dark grainy videos with other information to identify the perpetrator. Just one police dept investigating too with limited resources except for the cameras. But they’re able to find the guilty party in a short period of time, often within a few days.
The reason why I mentioned all of this is because I heard that Jan 6 is the most thorough and extensive investigation, with no issues with the amount of manpower to investigate. Very likely no problems with resources either.
Their investigation is viewing all kinds of (clear not grainy) video from multiple angles of the gathering/protest/ riot in broad daylight outside and inside with excellent lighting, YET, A YEAR LATER they still haven’t identified and arrested scaffold guy (without a mask on) with a bullhorn ordering people to fill up the Capitol. the fellow that removed the signs /barriers, and also haven’t arrested Ray Epps who is on multiple videos telling people to go into the capitol and was part of the initial breach of barriers outside.
I mean, they were essentially yelling into the camera to be arrested, but instead zippo.
The reason why I mentioned all of this is because I heard that Jan 6 is the most thorough and extensive investigation, with no issues with the amount of manpower to investigate. Very likely no problems with resources either.
Their investigation is viewing all kinds of (clear not grainy) video from multiple angles of the gathering/protest/ riot in broad daylight outside and inside with excellent lighting, YET, A YEAR LATER they still haven’t identified and arrested scaffold guy (without a mask on) with a bullhorn ordering people to fill up the Capitol. the fellow that removed the signs /barriers, and also haven’t arrested Ray Epps who is on multiple videos telling people to go into the capitol and was part of the initial breach of barriers outside.
I mean, they were essentially yelling into the camera to be arrested, but instead zippo.
Attachments
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Well, ok.
It may be somewhat speculative (that it was insurrection), but it's not as though there isn't some basis in fact to support that conclusion.
At any rate, it seems to me that it's a far better path to go down, than engaging in some circular-reasoning circle-jerk like this:
If it wasn't an insurrection, then how could anyone be possibly charged and convicted for it ?
The sequence is off: the existence of the crime of insurrection would certainly precede the charging of it, and any conviction for it.
Charging and obtaining a conviction doesn't somehow magically cause a crime - which, according to your "theory", didn't previously exist prior to the charging and conviction - to come into existence ... at some past point in time.
And if you allow that it could be charged and convictions obtained, then the above "it wasn't an insurrection" is highly speculative indeed.
Essentially, the premise in bold above, appears to be a twisting of logic in an apparent attempt to deny the facts of what occurred.
People can whine, screech, howl, and gaslight all day long but that in no way changes the nature and facts of what occurred.
And yet, prosecutors in some instances choose to forego charging it:
A Civilian's Guide to Insurrection Legalese
Perhaps it isn't quite as simple as you imagine it to be ... despite finding one instance where it was charged and convictions were obtained ?
Apparently, some "legal experts" seem to think that may be the case.
Correct ... and hence he was never convicted.
Sounds quite similar to believing the presumption that Trump had nothing to do with the events that transpired on January 6th.
It's just an example of how a measure of justice is sometimes obtained.
Keep an eye on those superseding indictments.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
And I'm here to tell ya:
Irony is dead - you just murdered it.
Simple (single or small number of perps) vs. complex (>2500+ mob ... and that doesn't include other higher up that weren't part of the actual mob)
That isn't what I've heard.
Highly doubtful, given that both manpower and resources are always both finite.
At the point where someone is arrested and charged, the "the right to a speedy trial" clock starts running.
Unless they forego their right to a speedy trial (which some Jan 6th defendants are ... but it likely won't help them)
Meanwhile, the statute of limitations clock allows for some leisure ... in terms of rounding up the miscreants and charging them.
Best not to clog up the court system and totally overwhelm investigators and prosecutors if at all possible.
The only one murdered that day was an unarmed woman protester Ashli Babbitt and very possibly another female protester.And I'm here to tell ya:
Irony is dead - you just murdered it.
Simple (single or small number of perps) vs. complex (>2500+ mob ... and that doesn't include other higher up that weren't part of the actual mob)
That isn't what I've heard.
Highly doubtful, given that both manpower and resources are always both finite.
At the point where someone is arrested and charged, the "the right to a speedy trial" clock starts running.
Unless they forego their right to a speedy trial (which some Jan 6th defendants are ... but it likely won't help them)
Meanwhile, the statute of limitations clock allows for some leisure ... in terms of rounding up the miscreants and charging them.
Best not to clog up the court system and totally overwhelm investigators and prosecutors if at all possible.
Hey look, Someone is interested in speedy trials now.
Got it, so scaffold commander isn’t being arrested and charged because they don’t want to clog the courts. Riiight.That’s some funny stuff right there.
The FBI says manpower is not an issue with the investigation. So believe what they say with a grain of salt.
