07 Sep 23
@wajoma saidThe sentencing is political because the crime was political
People can't speak with passion unless that passion is equally divied up between all prisoners or at least certain prisoners as defined by ATY possibly including but not limited to all prisoners defined by ATY because other cases might be discovered in other totally unrelated crimes.
I think the reason to care about this is the sentencing is political, openly political an ...[text shortened]... miss anyone out otherwise you'll be in a similar position of not posting with the necessary passion.
They attempted to overturn the will of the people in order to instal a right wing totalitarian goobermint, you really are the most faux liberal and biggest hypocrite on this site.
07 Sep 23
@wajoma saidI’ve been quite consistent for a long time that we in the USA imprison too many people for too long.
People can't speak with passion unless that passion is equally divied up between all prisoners or at least certain prisoners as defined by ATY possibly including but not limited to all prisoners defined by ATY because other cases might be discovered in other totally unrelated crimes.
I think the reason to care about this is the sentencing is political, openly political an ...[text shortened]... miss anyone out otherwise you'll be in a similar position of not posting with the necessary passion.
“Political prisoner”? Cute way of elevating these peoples crimes above others.
They broke the law and are going to jail. That’s how things work in a law abiding society.
07 Sep 23
@kevcvs57 saidkev bamboozle, you're not good at this are you, reread it, I was referring to ATY hobby horse prisoners, according to ATY one cannot talk about 'A' without talking about 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F', even if 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F' have nothing to do with the topic being discussed. A record of peoples posts should be maintained and posts rated according to their passion on a myriad of topics, crime, punishment, politics, philosophy etc etc and if you've not devoted enough time to some (what appears to be arbitrary) topic, your posts on unrelated subjects will be subject to (what appears to be arbitrary) a scale of passion.
Yeah you can talk to the widows of the Capitol police would died from heart attacks n stuff days after or any number of injured capitol police.
Victimless crime my ass
08 Sep 23
@philokalia saidOf course as you have already been shown, that wasn't the plan, but a plan, one that if Tarrio is to be believed he never saw. Assuming he is lying (a probably good assumption), it was clearly not the plan that was implemented as it didn't include the Capitol and none of the other buildings in that plan was occupied or attempted to be occupied.
Of course I am talking about peaceful occupation.
I am not talking about the rioting to get into the building.
The CHAZ was founded by a riot that gained access to the Seattle police station... But the occupation itself was peaceful, and was allowed to continue for weeks.
Just a year or two later, the conservatives want to do a similar plan: gain co ...[text shortened]... this was not a "coup" or an "insurrection."
The only lethal violence employed was by the state.
The defendants denied there was a plan, but unfortunately for them the jury got to see texts from Tarrio talking about a plan to "storm the Capitol" and from Biggs the night before telling others there was a plan that he had "discussed with Enrique (Tarrio)". The jury might have concluded that that plan was carried out given that 100 or more Proud Boys gathered at the same place at the same time, were given directions by bullhorn, were among the first group to attack police lines, break into the Capitol and proceed to the Senate Chamber where the Electoral College certification was to have taken place.
09 Sep 23
@wajoma saidHere's the initial break in at the Capitol: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/03/14/tucker-carlson-jacob-chansley-proud-boys/
No1 said "...the vast majority of those who breached the Capitol did so by violently breaking through police lines and then smashing windows to gain entry."
Go ahead and show your videos ( even though you've claimed a number of times that you yourself do not go to vid links) and we'll see the 'vast majority' simply wandered through open doors.
A small point you ma ...[text shortened]... ut a very good indicator of how the events have become exaggerated and distorted in your mind's eye.
The rioters first enter through the broken window on the left, then through the broken window on the right and then several of them kick down the door in the middle.
09 Sep 23
@no1marauder saidNeed an account to view that. A window can only be broken once, how many windows were broken did this equal the same number as 'the vast majority'.
Here's the initial break in at the Capitol: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/03/14/tucker-carlson-jacob-chansley-proud-boys/
The rioters first enter through the broken window on the left, then through the broken window on the right and then several of them kick down the door in the middle.
If you think this indicates a plan then whose plan? and why was no evidence hung on Biggs or Tarrio (did not attend Jan 6th) as in the mechanics of the plan i.e. group A breaks West windows at 10.15 group B breaks blah blah ad more importantly some evidence of a plan for what would happen once they overthrew the worlds most powerful goobermint. The plan for that evening, the next day etc. There's a good reason there's been no future plan presented, it's because there was a PB event planned and it was nothing to do with the capitol.
09 Sep 23
2 edits
@wajoma saidThis is extreme straw grasping to say the least.
Need an account to view that. A window can only be broken once, how many windows were broken did this equal the same number as 'the vast majority'.
If you think this indicates a plan then whose plan? and why was no evidence hung on Biggs or Tarrio (did not attend Jan 6th) as in the mechanics of the plan i.e. group A breaks West windows at 10.15 group B breaks blah blah ad ...[text shortened]... plan presented, it's because there was a PB event planned and it was nothing to do with the capitol.
No, every minute detail of a plan doesn't have to be proven in order for the jury to conclude a conspiracy existed. You might think the events I spelled out are all just remarkable coincidences, but surely a jury composed of persons not as rigidly ideological as yourself could reasonably reach a contrary conclusion.
You're second point has been answered several times already as you well know. If Congress had been "persuaded" through force/threat of force to award the election to Trump, no further action was necessary by the Proud Boy conspirators.
09 Sep 23
1 edit
@no1marauder saidThe point was to show how exaggerated your view of the events is, it comes through in your exaggerated language, unfortunately these exaggerations are now being measured in years of mens lives. Even if we were to concede there was a plan, it needs to be proven whose plan it was. You're doing 2 + 2 then making up an answer right or wrong.
This is extreme straw grasping to say the least.
No, every minute detail of a plan doesn't have to be proven in order for the jury to conclude a conspiracy existed. You might think the events I spelled out are all just remarkable coincidences, but surely a jury composed of persons not as rigidly ideological as yourself could reasonably reach a contrary conclusion.
...[text shortened]... force to award the election to Trump, no further action was necessary by the Proud Boy conspirators.
The second point stands, anything done under duress would be immediately voided once the protestors got hungry and went out for McDs. Causing at the very worst a mere blip. Remember that's based on (and I quote you) an 'If'. Again, no plan can be presented this was the goal.
09 Sep 23
3 edits
@wajoma saidI'm sure there's something less consequential regarding this affair as to whether more rioters entered the Capitol through windows that were smashed or through doors that were opened or broken down by other rioters. Nothing really comes to mind though.
The point was to show how exaggerated your view of the events is, it comes through in your exaggerated language, unfortunately these exaggerations are now being measured in years of mens lives. Even if we were to concede there was a plan, it needs to be proven whose plan it was. You're doing 2 + 2 then making up an answer right or wrong.
The second point stands, anything ...[text shortened]... ember that's based on (and I quote you) an 'If'. Again, no plan can be presented this was the goal.
Biggs specifically said there was a plan that he and Tarrio had discussed. That evidence went in front of the jury. I reiterate a position I have taken many times here; I am loathe to question the legal fact finders who heard all the evidence presented in court while I and other posters rely, at best, on partial accounts in various new media. Unless there is some indication of judicial misconduct like clearly incorrect or biased jury instructions, the jury is in a much better position to decide on the facts then internet posters.
Your assertion that a coerced EC certification could have been "immediately voided" has no basis in statutory law in the US. It would have created at minimum a Constitutional crisis esp. if Trump had insisted it gave him a legitimate reason to remain in power (as he well may have done).
An anecdote will tell you how his cronies felt about that; when Mike Pence's lawyer objected to Jeffrey Clark's (Trump's main co-conspirator at DOJ) insistence that Pence illegally seat the fake electors by saying "You're going to wind up with this election being decided in the streets", Clark smugly answered "That's why there's an Insurrection Act."
CORRECTION: It was actually deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin and Jeffrey Clark. The exchange went like this according to the Indictment:
"Philbin argued that if Trump remained in office despite his loss, there would be "riots in every major city in the United States."
"Well, [Deputy White House Counsel], that's why there's an Insurrection Act," Clark responded, according to the charging document, referring to the act that empowers the sitting president to employ state militias and armed forces to enforce federal authority and suppress civil rebellion or insurrections as he considers necessary. "
https://www.salon.com/2023/08/02/conspiracy-st-beamed-down-from-the-mothership-doj-says-trumper-wanted-to-use-insurrection-act/
09 Sep 23
Vice-President Pence's counsel said pretty much the same thing to Co-Conspirator 2, John Eastman, that having the Vice-President replace duly elected Electors with the fake ones would cause a "disastrous situation" where the election might "have to be decided in the streets". Paragraph 95 of the Federal Indictment https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/08/politics/annotated-text-copy-trump-indictment-dg/
@no1marauder saidCan't say anything more on your exaggerated view backed by examples of your exaggerated language, i.e. "vast majority of those who breached the Capitol did so by violently breaking through police lines and then smashing windows to gain entry". for any normal person it might be a nudge to try a little introspection.
I'm sure there's something less inconsequential regarding this affair as to whether more rioters entered the Capitol through windows that were smashed or through doors that were opened or broken down by other rioters. Nothing really comes to mind though.
Biggs specifically said there was a plan that he and Tarrio had discussed. That evidence went in front of the jury. ...[text shortened]... ction being decided in the streets", Clark smugly answered "That's why there's an Insurrection Act."
That's all you're reduced to, two words 'a plan' it could have been a plan where to meet, it could have been a plan where to park, it could have been the plan to meet for a live music gathering that evening at an entirely different location.
...if Trump had insisted it gave him a legitimate reason to remain in power (as he well may have done).
Now you're piling 'if's' on top of 'if's' If only you could see that, if only we could see the plan and not just those two words 'a plan'.
Edit: Just realised the absurdity of that 'if' are you suggesting Trump was the master mind, that they were working in cahoots. The PB's (even though it had been stipulated PB were not to attend as PB's) were acting on Trumps instruction or, haha, Trump would have been acting on PB instruction.
09 Sep 23
It looks like we have an honest disagreement among men.
Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness “The Nature of Government,”:
even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.
09 Sep 23
2 edits
@wajoma saidNo, a normal person would admit that you are desperately clutching at straws to ignore the fact that the vast majority of those who entered the Capitol did so by illegal force. Your dishonest failure to admit this obvious fact says a lot.
Can't say anything more on your exaggerated view backed by examples of your exaggerated language, i.e. "vast majority of those who breached the Capitol did so by violently breaking through police lines and then smashing windows to gain entry". for any normal person it might be a nudge to try a little introspection.
That's all you're reduced to, two words 'a plan' it ...[text shortened]... as PB's) were acting on Trumps instruction or, haha, Trump would have been acting on PB instruction.
The jury obviously decided that the plan (that Tarrio said involved "storm(ing) the Capitol" ) was not just where the non- [in your absurd Dream World]) Proud Boys would have breakfast on January 6th.
Direct coordination between Trump and the Proud Boys was hardly necessary for Trump to eventually benefit from their illegal, violent acts.
09 Sep 23
@no1marauder saidYes, there were a bunch of trespassers, no argument there, at most $500 fine and pick up trash by the road for a couple of weeks.
No, a normal person would admit that you are desperately clutching at straws to ignore the fact that the vast majority of those who entered the Capitol did so by illegal force. Your dishonest failure to admit this obvious fact says a lot.
The jury obviously decided that the plan (that Tarrio said involved "storm(ing) the Capitol" ) was not just where the non- [in your ...[text shortened]... he Proud Boys was hardly necessary for Trump to eventually benefit from their illegal, violent acts.
So the plan (which has never been seen) was to delay the transfer of power in case/if Trump might take advantage of the situation? Maybe he'd catch a hint, or some brain waves floating through the air.
It is you grasping at straws No1.
09 Sep 23
1 edit
@wajoma saidIn the USA trespassers can get the death penalty. The owner can shoot them. It has to do with the right to bear arms and protecting property.
Yes, there were a bunch of trespassers, no argument there, at most $500 fine and pick up trash by the road for a couple of weeks.
So the plan (which has never been seen) was to delay the transfer of power in case/if Trump might take advantage of the situation? Maybe he'd catch a hint, or some brain waves floating through the air.
It is you grasping at straws No1.