Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 91

Thread: are the jailed insurrectionists really political prisoners like the GOP is claiming?

  1. #46 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    The ‘spin’ is in trying to turn the riot into an insurrection when there’s zero evidence that it was. A couple weeks ago it leaked out that the FBI found no conspiracy and they haven’t walked it back. Trump wasn’t even tangentially involved with it. It was a riot inside the Capitol. It was ugly, embarrassing and revolting but it was a riot.

    And it’s over.
    The problem with those using the defense that they thought they were following the president's wishes is that they are admitting to what they did.

    I'm not sure anything leaked out. The Reuters study said a "former FBI" official said there was not collusion. That is probably true for the entire event but obviously there was some planning and collusion among individual smaller groups.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    PoliTalker (09-08-2021)

  3. #47 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Flash,

    What reference do you have that could possibly show that anything besides the definition of the word is required to use a word in a sentence?

    If that.
    The definition of a word is too vague to be used for a criminal conviction. A law has elements all of which must be met to convict.

    Do you think the BLM rioters were trying to overthrow the government? You would have to show their intent to do so. The same applies to the Capitol rioters. It would be very difficult to do.

    The prison term for insurrection or rebellion is no longer than ten years. A serious assault on a federal police officer probably carries a longer sentence.

  4. #48 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    Seen an awful lot of that over the last 20 months.

    Everyone is on board for them being charged appropriately. The ‘paraders’ need to be treated like paraders. Every one of them should have been charged, paid their fine and sent on their way by now.
    Most have already been released on bail. There was a federal court ruling that those attacking federal law enforcement is a higher level crime and could be held without bail.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    PoliTalker (09-08-2021)

  6. #49 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    A federal judge has questioned one of the most serious charges against the rioters as being too vague and hard to distinguish from similar actions with less serious punishment:

    "U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta asked how federal prosecutors distinguish felony conduct qualifying as “obstructing an official proceeding” of Congress — punishable by up to 20 years in prison — from misdemeanor offenses the government has charged others with, such as shouting to interrupt a congressional hearing."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...VsB7GwGWzOg_xk

  7. #50 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Flash,

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The definition of a word is too vague to be used for a criminal conviction. A law has elements all of which must be met to convict.
    We are not determining a criminal conviction here.

    We are having a political discussion. You're trying to use rules which do not apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Do you think the BLM rioters were trying to overthrow the government? You would have to show their intent to do so.
    Now see? Nothing prevents you from going off into a different discussion. That would not be allowed in a court. You're trying to apply courtroom rules to deny other arguments, but breaking the same to forward your own. Duplicitous at best.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The same applies to the Capitol rioters. It would be very difficult to do.

    The prison term for insurrection or rebellion is no longer than ten years. A serious assault on a federal police officer probably carries a longer sentence.
    Now there's a good point. You've possibly hit on why we are not seeing charges for insurrection. It isn't because none of these cases meet the definition. It's because prosecutors can get longer sentencing by going after assault instead of insurrection.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  8. #51 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Darth,

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    I’m not going to sit here and let you choose when the term applies lol.
    Just calling it like I see it.

    you wanna try to derail a discussion about the insurrection by talking about BLM, then I am rightfully labeling that whataboutism.

    If you don't want to get dinged for whataboutism then stick to the subject.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  9. #52 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Flash,

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    A federal judge has questioned one of the most serious charges against the rioters as being too vague and hard to distinguish from similar actions with less serious punishment:

    "U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta asked how federal prosecutors distinguish felony conduct qualifying as “obstructing an official proceeding” of Congress — punishable by up to 20 years in prison — from misdemeanor offenses the government has charged others with, such as shouting to interrupt a congressional hearing."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...VsB7GwGWzOg_xk
    Should be pretty obvious that shouting to disrupt is not as severe as perpetrating serious violence which causes everyone to flee from the room, thus suspending the proceeding until the danger has been cleared.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  10. #53 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Flash,

    We are not determining a criminal conviction here.
    We are having a political discussion. You're trying to use rules which do not apply.
    I thought we were discussing whether the rioters could be charged with rebellion or insurrection. The rules would not apply in court but if we are having a political discussion it could be part of that discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Now see? Nothing prevents you from going off into a different discussion. That would not be allowed in a court. You're trying to apply courtroom rules to deny other arguments, but breaking the same to forward your own. Duplicitous at best.
    I know it would not be allowed in court, but it is part of our political discussion. I wasn't suggesting it could be used in court but the difficulties of insurrection charges.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Now there's a good point. You've possibly hit on why we are not seeing charges for insurrection. It isn't because none of these cases meet the definition. It's because prosecutors can get longer sentencing by going after assault instead of insurrection.
    You ignore the difficulty of insurrection charges. How do you prove the intent of the rioters was to overthrow the government? I think there were probably many different motivations involved including just joining the crowd. Mob psychology is powerful.

  11. #54 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,515
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,563 Times in 17,090 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    A federal judge has questioned one of the most serious charges against the rioters as being too vague and hard to distinguish from similar actions with less serious punishment:

    "U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta asked how federal prosecutors distinguish felony conduct qualifying as “obstructing an official proceeding” of Congress — punishable by up to 20 years in prison — from misdemeanor offenses the government has charged others with, such as shouting to interrupt a congressional hearing."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...VsB7GwGWzOg_xk
    The joint congress was certifying the electoral college votes. That is an important and solemn duty. Trump timed his rally perfectly for that. They disrupted a congressional action.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Nordberg For This Post:

    PoliTalker (09-08-2021)

  13. #55 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Flash,

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I thought we were discussing whether the rioters could be charged with rebellion or insurrection. The rules would not apply in court but if we are having a political discussion it could be part of that discussion.
    News to me. I thought it was a discussion about trying to relabel the defendants as 'political prisoners.'

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I know it would not be allowed in court, but it is part of our political discussion. I wasn't suggesting it could be used in court but the difficulties of insurrection charges.
    It's only part of the discussion because certain participants are trying to control the terminology and refuse to call and insurrection an insurrection. The problem is: it was an insurrection. A group revolted against our government and tried to force our government to do what they wanted instead of allowing the official proceeding to continue it's course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You ignore the difficulty of insurrection charges. How do you prove the intent of the rioters was to overthrow the government? I think there were probably many different motivations involved including just joining the crowd. Mob psychology is powerful.
    I'm not trying to change the charges. I would simply like to see justice done.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  14. #56 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    28,517
    Thanks
    3,857
    Thanked 12,020 Times in 8,278 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 2,673 Times in 2,479 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MAGA View Post
    I need no one else, we saw DC, Minneapolis, and Portland burn. Your failure to admit it is on your dumbass
    DC burned down? Really?

  15. #57 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    8,281
    Thanks
    1,421
    Thanked 2,597 Times in 1,937 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 661 Times in 608 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reagansghost View Post
    I guess if we had a republican president/congress right now I could storm the capitol with my pals, beat cops, shit on the floor, try to hang the Veep and the Speaker, and then call it a political witch hunt after I got charged and jailed

    btw the first time I heard this ridiculous claim Putin said it, could be a coincidence
    How's about finally jailing a number of insurrectionist tRump ass licking Congressional GQP Taliban type Jihadist that are waging war on Democracy, the common decency of society and anything else of a civilized nature on Earth, etc?

  16. #58 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Darth,



    Just calling it like I see it.

    you wanna try to derail a discussion about the insurrection by talking about BLM, then I am rightfully labeling that whataboutism.

    If you don't want to get dinged for whataboutism then stick to the subject.
    I thought the subject was the definition of insurrection and when to apply it.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  17. #59 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Flash,



    We are not determining a criminal conviction here.

    We are having a political discussion. You're trying to use rules which do not apply.



    Now see? Nothing prevents you from going off into a different discussion. That would not be allowed in a court. You're trying to apply courtroom rules to deny other arguments, but breaking the same to forward your own. Duplicitous at best.



    Now there's a good point. You've possibly hit on why we are not seeing charges for insurrection. It isn't because none of these cases meet the definition. It's because prosecutors can get longer sentencing by going after assault instead of insurrection.
    That’s all well and good but then I want to see *the same sentencing standards* applied to BLM and Antifa when they assault cops.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  18. #60 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Darth,

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    I thought the subject was the definition of insurrection and when to apply it.
    Then you're conceding that January 6th was an insurrection?

    Doesn't really matter much. You can call it a picnic if it feels better.

    Looked like an insurrection to me.

    A group revolting against government.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-05-2021, 11:47 AM
  2. the Insurrectionists are just Trash
    By katzgar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-12-2021, 06:22 AM
  3. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-17-2020, 10:20 AM
  4. 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 04-22-2019, 10:49 AM
  5. Degenerate US Saudi allies torturing political prisoners
    By moon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-01-2019, 11:11 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •