Who here still supports Jan 6 attack?

[Fnord 1,141]

6 minutes ago, double tour said:

Only liberals get their feelers hurt by a selfie fest yet stick up for $2B in damages in riots across America that they caused. Not to mention all the deaths and injuries.

You are such a whiny pvssy. It's funny to see you stumble and trip your way around this forum sticking up for a bunch of liberal bltches like yourself. 

 I have never "stuck up for" any rioters. Neither have the vast majority of people that you claim have. Get your head straight, son.

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

Three years after 9/11 liberals were calling for Gitmo to be closed,  defendants to be charged or released. Yet today 3 years after Jan 6 some Jan 6 defendants, and I will say their guilt is all but assured, are still in pre- trial confinement. There is nothing  in the constitution about back logged cases being a reason to deny anyone a speedy trial. That’s on the government to find a way.  

[Fnord 1,141]

12 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Three years after 9/11 liberals were calling for Gitmo to be closed,  defendants to be charged or released. Yet today 3 years after Jan 6 some Jan 6 defendants, and I will say their guilt is all but assured, are still in pre- trial confinement. There is nothing  in the constitution about back logged cases being a reason to deny anyone a speedy trial. That’s on the government to find a way.  

Agreed.

[jonmx 1,596]

36 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Links to the hundreds of black mobs forcing their way into the Capitol building?

One of the many, many differences between us is that I think you're a gullible dupe. Truth be told, I don't think you're a moron even though I've called you one many times. I just think you're really partisan and listen to bad information sources. Contrast that with your need to denigrate and dehumanize me, call me stupid and a liar, and hate me for being a bootlicking fascist. Simply because I hate Trump. No other reason.

All that while screaming about how straight white conservative men in this country are treated like Jews during the holocaust without a hint of irony or self awareness. 

We empowered our government to protect CITIZENS.   Black mobs have attacked hundreds of businesses.  If our government don't protect citizens, fuk the Capitol.   Congressmen are not kings.  They are servants.  That is what you bootlickers do not understand.   Your tongue is so far up the elitists butts, you have no concept of the principles our country was founded on.   We have to stop putting these bastards on pedestals.  They are just citizens, their rights are not superior to ours.  Equal Protection under the law.  

[IGotWorms 3,317]

1 minute ago, jonmx said:

We empowered our government to protect CITIZENS.   Black mobs have attacked hundreds of businesses.  If our government don't protect citizens, fuk the Capitol.   Congressmen are not kings.  They are servants.  That is what you bootlickers do not understand.   Your tongue is so far up the elitists butts, you have no concept of the principles our country was founded on.   We have to stop putting these bastards on pedestals.  They are just citizens, their rights are not superior to ours.  Equal Protection under the law.  

You need some new material 🥱 

[Fnord 1,141]

Just now, jonmx said:

We empowered our government to protect CITIZENS.   Black mobs have attacked hundreds of businesses.  If our government don't protect citizens, fuk the Capitol.   Congressmen are not kings.  They are servants.  That is what you bootlickers do not understand.   Your tongue is so far up the elitists butts, you have no concept of the principles our country was founded on.   We have to stop putting these bastards on pedestals.  They are just citizens, their rights are not superior to ours.  Equal Protection under the law.  

Yeah, yeah.

You and I agree about more than you'd ever suspect.

But I can't help noticing that you ignored damn near everything I said, while doubling down on the denigrating language.

[jonmx 1,596]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

You need some new material 🥱 

Yeah, freedom, equality...such ridiculous concepts.  

[Maximum Overkill 652]

 

[jerryskids 5,212]

I had no idea they were using some creative, bizarro interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley to get these folks and Trump.  I thought Trump was more about obscure codes designed to punish quartermasters in the Civil War who cheated the government.

Anyway, this could be interesting.

Quote

Supreme Court case could upend felony charges against Jan. 6 rioters, Trump

DEVIN DWYER

Tue, April 16, 2024 at 7:17 AM MST·2 min read

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday is hearing arguments in a high-stakes case that could invalidate felony obstruction charges for more than 300 individuals connected to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack -- including former President Donald Trump.

At issue in the case of Fischer v. United States is whether a federal law enacted in 2002 to prevent the cover-up of financial crimes can be used to put some Jan. 6 defendants behind bars, potentially up to 20 years.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed in response to the Enron accounting scandal, criminalizes the destruction of evidence -- specifically records or documents -- and anyone who "otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so."

Joseph Fischer was a participant in the "Stop the Steal" rally on Jan. 6 who faces prosecution for allegedly being part of the crowd that entered the Capitol as Congress was attempting to certify the 2020 election results.

The Justice Department alleges Fischer's unauthorized presence inside the Capitol building impeded Congress' certification of the electoral vote count, which is an "official proceeding."

Trump is not named in the case but faces the same charge being challenged by Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer.

The DOJ has used the statute to win convictions or guilty pleas against more than 150 individuals involved in the events of Jan. 6.

MORE: Some Jan. 6 rioters received improper sentence enhancements, appeals court rules

Fischer argues the government's reading of the law is overly broad and unprecedented. He claims the "obstruction of an official proceeding" clause should apply only to the types of financial and evidentiary crimes the law was intended to target.

A District Court judge -- Trump-appointee Carl J. Nichols -- sided with Fischer and dismissed the felony count against him and several other alleged rioters. Later, a divided Appeals Court panel reversed that decision in a 2-1 ruling that reinstated the charges.

Overall, 14 of the 15 federal judges who have overseen cases involving alleged Capitol rioters charged with obstruction of an official proceeding have allowed the DOJ to use the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Fischer, it could call into question dozens of Jan. 6 prosecutions – potentially resulting in some overturned convictions or reduced sentences -- but would likely not upend the majority of Jan. 6 cases, most of which involve violent felony charges or misdemeanor infractions like trespassing, legal experts say.

Such a decision could, however, significantly undermine special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Two of the four counts in the federal indictment against Trump involve the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and alleged conspiracy to obstruct and actual obstruction of an official proceeding.

In a separate case this month, the high court will decide whether Trump is altogether immune from criminal prosecution for his alleged election interference. A ruling in both cases is expected by the end of June.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/supreme-court-case-could-upend-090731507.html?.tsrc=%2619908-1202929-20240416-0&segment_id&bt_user_id=YOsAwKzxEucXGzp7ymsKNHn%2FAz1jeQcGWmVWo%2B1a1MjRWNuWLlNWFF8XfsX%2BTonN&bt_ts=1713278308992

[jonmx 1,596]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

I had no idea they were using some creative, bizarro interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley to get these folks and Trump.  I thought Trump was more about obscure codes designed to punish quartermasters in the Civil War who cheated the government.

Anyway, this could be interesting.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/supreme-court-case-could-upend-090731507.html?.tsrc=%2619908-1202929-20240416-0&segment_id&bt_user_id=YOsAwKzxEucXGzp7ymsKNHn%2FAz1jeQcGWmVWo%2B1a1MjRWNuWLlNWFF8XfsX%2BTonN&bt_ts=1713278308992

 

This case started off bad.  The defense attorney did not do a good job at articulating the arguement and answering questions.   The prosecuting attorney got off to a solid start, but as the questions dug deeper she could not clearly explain why these charges could not be levied against any protests which disrupted any proceeding.   It should be a 7-2 reversal which could likely put in jeapordy 330 convictions.   The judges were very skeptical of both sides arguments.  The prosecutor was a better attorney, but did very little to assure the court that the prosecution's interpretation of the law will not criminalize protests.

[Strike 3,981]

SCOTUS asked if Jamal Bowman could be prosecuted and sent away for 20 years for pulling the fire alarm.  ROFLMAO.  Thanks Jamal.  You're gonna torpedo most of  the feds Jan 6 cases.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,529]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

SCOTUS asked if Jamal Bowman could be prosecuted and sent away for 20 years for pulling the fire alarm.  ROFLMAO.  Thanks Jamal.  You're gonna torpedo most of  the feds Jan 6 cases.

That is so awesome.   Who asked that question?

[jonmx 1,596]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

SCOTUS asked if Jamal Bowman could be prosecuted and sent away for 20 years for pulling the fire alarm.  ROFLMAO.  Thanks Jamal.  You're gonna torpedo most of  the feds Jan 6 cases.

The government attorney did not have a good answer for that line of questioning.  She tried to suggest there was some criteria for distiguising acts that only have minimal impact.  When asked where that was in the law, she had no answer.  Several justices suggested that any disrupted form of protesting could be considered a violation under their interpretation.  I would be surprised if the 330 verdicts were not overturned or sent back for re-examination 

[jonmx 1,596]

7 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

That is so awesome.   Who asked that question?

I am pretty sure it was Thomas or Alito.  Even one of the liberal justices seemed concerned that the prosecutor's interpretation was dangerous.   It could go 7-2.  The only downside is the defense attorney did a pretty horrible job of answering questions.   But the prosecutor got peppered much harder.

[Strike 3,981]

13 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

That is so awesome.   Who asked that question?

 

[jerryskids 5,212]

6 minutes ago, jonmx said:

I am pretty sure it was Thomas or Alito.  Even one of the liberal justices seemed concerned that the prosecutor's interpretation was dangerous.   It could go 7-2.  The only downside is the defense attorney did a pretty horrible job of answering questions.   But the prosecutor got peppered much harder.

Given that, in general, protests are the tool of progressives, I would think that the liberal justices are between a rock and a hard place on this one.  If they let it fly, it could seriously impact the ability of future blue hair sky screamers to protest.

[Strike 3,981]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

Given that, in general, protests are the tool of progressives, I would think that the liberal justices are between a rock and a hard place on this one.  If they let it fly, it could seriously impact the ability of future blue hair sky screamers to protest.

Nothing wrong with protesting.  Blocking traffic and generally disrupting life for others is not protesting and whoever decided it was should be made an example of.  Thank God Florida doesn't allow it.  Need other states to follow suit.

[jerryskids 5,212]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Nothing wrong with protesting.  Blocking traffic and generally disrupting life for others is not protesting and whoever decided it was should be made an example of.  Thank God Florida doesn't allow it.  Need other states to follow suit.

Oh, I completely agree. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

SCOTUS asked if Jamal Bowman could be prosecuted and sent away for 20 years for pulling the fire alarm.  ROFLMAO.  Thanks Jamal.  You're gonna torpedo most of  the feds Jan 6 cases.

Oh boy. The tea leaves are being read. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

Just as a reminder to you libtards, I didn’t here you complaining about the courts and the conservative scotus not taking up Trumps case about the 2020 election. Y’all would n’t stfu about it and you’re still yapping. So no crying if this don’t go your way. TIA. 

[Fnord 1,141]

28 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Just as a reminder to you libtards, I didn’t here you complaining about the courts and the conservative scotus not taking up Trumps case about the 2020 election. Y’all would n’t stfu about it and you’re still yapping. So no crying if this don’t go your way. TIA. 

Why would SCOTUS take up a case that was universally smothered by every single lower court?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

Just now, Fnord said:

Why would SCOTUS take up a case that was universally smothered by every single lower court?

Yeah, universally smother after an extensive deep dive into the issue for three weeks. And Scotus didn’t take it up because Roberts was afraid of riots. Congrats. It worked.  

[jonmx 1,596]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

Why would SCOTUS take up a case that was universally smothered by every single lower court?

 

Several cases recently which were universally decided were flipped by the Supreme. 9-0.   The leftists in the lower courts can't help themselves.   

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,529]

3 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Why would SCOTUS take up a case that was universally smothered by every single lower court?

That's you're reasoning? 

You should change your alias to f'nmoron instead fnord.  Or maybe f'nretard is a better fit.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

10 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Why would SCOTUS take up a case that was universally smothered by every single lower court?

Are you saying they couldn't take it up? They voted on it. 

[Fnord 1,141]

18 hours ago, Fnord said:

Why would SCOTUS take up a case that was universally smothered by every single lower court?

I'm asking a question. Below are the "answers" given by the MAGAMOOKS:

18 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah, universally smother after an extensive deep dive into the issue for three weeks. And Scotus didn’t take it up because Roberts was afraid of riots. Congrats. It worked.  

Link to Robert's stating he wouldn't take it up for fear of riots? And since fuking when would that be grounds for SCOTUS to not do their jobs?

18 hours ago, jonmx said:

Several cases recently which were universally decided were flipped by the Supreme. 9-0.   The leftists in the lower courts can't help themselves.   

Link to SEVERAL cases please.

18 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

That's you're reasoning? 

You should change your alias to f'nmoron instead fnord.  Or maybe f'nretard is a better fit.

Great legal mind at work here. Thanks for your thoughts, Eternallystupidcuck.

17 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Are you saying they couldn't take it up? They voted on it. 

I ASKED a question. No, I did not say that.

3 guys, 4 responses, zero value.

[jonmx 1,596]

2 hours ago, Fnord said:

 

 

Link to SEVERAL cases please.

 

Well there are three which some of the most important in this term.  

1.  Keeping Trump off the ballot won at every level and was declared an iron-clad ruling by the media experts.  Slapped down 9-0 by the Supreme court.

2.  Yesterday, the court heard the case about obstruction of official proceedings being applied to the Jan 6 rioters along with Trump.  14 of 15 judges on the lower level says it was a correct application.  That is going to get smacked down by 7-2.  

3.  None of the lower courts thought the President  held immunity after they leave office, even for official acts.   This Supreme Court will unamaniously overturn those idiotic rulings, the only question is what limits is put on it.

The lower courts have been corrupted taken over by TDS. 

 

 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

20 hours ago, Fnord said:

Why would SCOTUS take up a case that was universally smothered by every single lower court?

You know they can't say the real reason out loud. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,529]

2 hours ago, Fnord said:

I'm asking a question. Below are the "answers" given by the MAGAMOOKS:

Link to Robert's stating he wouldn't take it up for fear of riots? And since fuking when would that be grounds for SCOTUS to not do their jobs?

Link to SEVERAL cases please.

Great legal mind at work here. Thanks for your thoughts, Eternallystupidcuck.

I ASKED a question. No, I did not say that.

3 guys, 4 responses, zero value.

If I provide ZERO value, you're into negative numbers. 

 

[double tour 82]

50 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

If I provide ZERO value, you're into negative numbers. 

 

That dude was born out of some liberal's a-hole. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

3 hours ago, Fnord said:

I'm asking a question. Below are the "answers" given by the MAGAMOOKS:

Link to Robert's stating he wouldn't take it up for fear of riots? And since fuking when would that be grounds for SCOTUS to not do their jobs?

Link to SEVERAL cases please.

Great legal mind at work here. Thanks for your thoughts, Eternallystupidcuck.

I ASKED a question. No, I did not say that.

3 guys, 4 responses, zero value.

You can’t seem to follow along. Too much HTDS.  The point is, they made a decision that you were good with. The court has ruled, TFB, right? So going forward if they make one that you don’t agree with, keep your trap shut. The court will have ruled. Sad I had to walk you through that. Count to ten before responding from now on.  It helps with your HTDS. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,529]

1 hour ago, double tour said:

That dude was born out of some liberal's a-hole. 

They don't call him fnretard because he's a smart guy.

[Maximum Overkill 652]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether federal prosecutors went too far in bringing obstruction charges against hundreds of participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. But it wasn’t clear how the justices would rule in a case that also could affect the prosecution of former President Donald Trump, who faces the same charge for his efforts to overturn his election loss in 2020.

[jerryskids 5,212]

Some compelling evidence that the National Guard was held back from helping on 1/6, and that officials lied about it.

Quote

The secretary of the Army on Jan. 6, 2021, lied about multiple details regarding what unfolded as the U.S. Capitol was breached, National Guard whistleblowers said during a congressional hearing on April 17.

Then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy made multiple false claims, including that he spoke to the commanding general of the District of Columbia National Guard on two separate occasions after officials requested that the Guard be deployed to the Capitol, the whistleblowers said.

After Maj. Gen. William Walker conveyed a request from the U.S. Capitol Police for Guard personnel, Mr. McCarthy called Maj. Gen. Walker at 2:14 p.m. and instructed the Guard to stand by, according to a Guard timeline of Jan. 6, 2021. But that call and others that Mr. McCarthy or one of his top advisers were said to have made later authorizing the Guard for mobilization and deployment did not happen, according to the Guard officials.

“At no time did Gen. Walker take any calls, nor did we ever hear from the secretary on any of the ongoing conference calls or the secure video teleconferencing throughout the day,” Capt. Timothy Nick, who served as Maj. Gen. Walker’s personal assistant on Jan. 6, 2021, said during the hearing. “This I know because I was with the command general the entire time recording the events.”

Capt. Nick has not previously discussed publicly what transpired on Jan. 6, 2021, and neither has Brig. Gen. Aaron Dean, who was the National Guard’s adjutant general on the day that the Capitol was breached.

The Department of Defense (DOD) inspector general report on Jan. 6, 2021, which relied heavily on Mr. McCarthy and other military officials, was rife with “inaccuracies,” Brig. Gen. Dean said. “I believe it is my duty and moral obligation to stand before you today and illuminate the truth,” he told the hearing, which was held by the House Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight.

Despite Mr. Walker conveying the request for assistance at about 1:50 p.m., the Guard was not deployed to the Capitol until about 5:10 p.m.

“This was a dereliction of duty by the secretary of the Army,” Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.), one of the members of the committee, said.

Mr. McCarthy refused to appear before the panel, Dr. Murphy said.

Christopher Miller, the acting secretary of defense at the time, authorized Guard deployment at 3:11 p.m., but Mr. McCarthy took the order and decided to draw up a plan before ordering the deployment, according to military timelines and testimony from Mr. McCarthy and others.

“You never would employ our personnel, whether it’s on an American street or a foreign street, without putting together a [plan],” Mr. McCarthy told the now-disbanded House Jan. 6 committee.

Mr. McCarthy could not be reached for comment. The Army declined to comment.

“We stand by our January 6th Report and have no further comment at this time,” a DOD inspector general spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email.

Other Leaders

The whistleblowers also testified that Army officials Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt and Gen. Charles Flynn, during a 2:30 p.m. conference call on Jan. 6, 2021, expressed concern about the optics of having the Guard at the Capitol.

“I did hear the word optics. And they did use it. Specifically, Gen. Piatt said ‘optics.’ And his concern was that he did not want soldiers or airmen on Capitol grounds, with the Capitol in the background,” Brig. Gen. Dean said. “They were giving every other reason why we should be around the Capitol, away from the Capitol, and not responding to the Capitol.”

The officials lacked familiarity with the Guard and the Guard’s capabilities, Brig. Gen. Dean said.

Lt. Gen. Piatt has been quoted by Maj. Gen. Walker and others as saying during the call: “I don’t like the visual of the National Guard standing a line with the Capitol in the background. I would much rather relieve USCP [U.S. Capitol Police] officers from other posts so they can handle the protestors.”

Lt. Gen. Piatt has told lawmakers that he did not recall using the words optics, visuals, or image during the call or in any other conversations on Jan. 6, 2021. But he later said, “I may have said that,” citing people who took notes during the call.

Gen. Flynn told the House Oversight Committee in 2021 that he “never expressed a concern about the visuals, image, or public perception of sending the D.C. National Guard to the U.S. Capitol.”

Col. Earl Matthews, a lawyer who was with Maj. Gen. Walker on Jan. 6, 2021, and who has challenged the Pentagon Jan. 6 narrative, and District of Columbia National Guard Command Sgt. Michael Brooks, a senior officer with the Guard until he retired in 2022, also testified during the hearing in Washington.

None of the Guard officials who testified were formally interviewed by the House Jan. 6 committee, which was primarily run by Democrats and disbanded at the end of the previous Congress.

The officials said the Guard was ready to act and could have made a difference if not for the delay.

“I know if we were able to deploy immediately when Gen. Walker made the request, the National Guard could have helped end civil disturbance and restore order quickly,” Capt. Nick said.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/top-military-official-lied-about-jan-6-details-whistleblowers-5631388?utm_source=RTNews&src_src=RTNews&utm_campaign=rtbreaking-2024-04-17-3&src_cmp=rtbreaking-2024-04-17-3&utm_medium=email&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa%2Bc5ZwoL29TE7ZMJs2RQB%2Fp5xE4rMJYB6XwmPih86EDY1%2BPA

ETA:  And I just highlighted the fact that none of these folks were formally interviewed by the 1/6 committee, further evidence that that committee was a witch hunt and not a pursuit of truth.

[Fnord 1,141]

Optics. Cute. "I know the Capitol is overrun sir, and that lawmakers are fearing for their lives, but think about how it will look if we have to engage with all these crazy white dudes!"

I have read similar articles about this, and it's about damn time we get some more answers about lack of NG involvement. 

I'm curious though. Does the article mention none of that would have mattered if the CIC would have ordered the NG to go in?

 

 

[jerryskids 5,212]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

Optics. Cute. "I know the Capitol is overrun sir, and that lawmakers are fearing for their lives, but think about how it will look if we have to engage with all these crazy white dudes!"

I have read similar articles about this, and it's about damn time we get some more answers about lack of NG involvement. 

I'm curious though. Does the article mention none of that would have mattered if the CIC would have ordered the NG to go in?

 

 

Didn't you just read the article?

Are you saying that Trump should be convicted because he didn't personally pick up the phone and call them?

[Fnord 1,141]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Didn't you just read the article?

Are you saying that Trump should be convicted because he didn't personally pick up the phone and call them?

Abso-fuking-lutely. GROSS dereliction of duty is the most generous term I can think of.

ETA: I did not read the article you posted, but have read others. I'm still on the fence over how I feel about the Epoch Times. Then my free article limit ran out, so I have stopped reading it.

[jerryskids 5,212]

Just now, Fnord said:

Abso-fuking-lutely. GROSS dereliction of duty is the most generous term I can think of.

I'll flaunt my ignorance here and ask:  was he specifically asked to order in the NG from his experts, and didn't do it?  I honestly don't know, but that doesn't seem the case from the article I posted.

I'll break that into two parts:  the time leading up to 1/6, and as the SHTF on the day.

The answers significantly impacts my opinion.

[jonmx 1,596]

33 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I'll flaunt my ignorance here and ask:  was he specifically asked to order in the NG from his experts, and didn't do it?  I honestly don't know, but that doesn't seem the case from the article I posted.

I'll break that into two parts:  the time leading up to 1/6, and as the SHTF on the day.

The answers significantly impacts my opinion.

Trump can not send the National Guard to locations he lacks jurisdiction, which is most anywhere inside this country.  Trump offered them, and the Mayor and Pelosi turned it down due to 'optics'.  

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

If the republic was in danger of being overthrown why wasn’t the army sent in to stop it?