Arrests of the Traitors coming in now
- Thread starter Chishawk1425
- Start date
You should look up the charges, and then the details of Richard Barnett. Then look at his potential sentence. That's one example, and there are numerous others.
All reasonable people would stipulate he broke some laws, relatively minor.
After this discuss whether the sentence is reasonable. In a non partisan and non emotional way.
You won't. First you won't bother to look up anything other than media articles. Then you won't step back from your hatred, extreme partisanship and emotion.
It's unfortunate,. You are in many ways the left's version of QAnon. What I'd suggest you do is take a step back and ponder the possibility that the exercise you are engaged in is exactly the same exercise you criticize Trumpers for engaging in. Not necessarily the minor criminal acts, but the reaction and irrational debate.
I would think most reasonable people, on both sides, would be disturbed by not only the events of 1/6, but also some of the prosecutions. Anecdotally, I think this is true based on my experiences. Anecdotally it doesn't apply to person like yourself.
FWIW, I can predict your response to this. Surprise me.
All reasonable people would stipulate he broke some laws, relatively minor.
After this discuss whether the sentence is reasonable. In a non partisan and non emotional way.
You won't. First you won't bother to look up anything other than media articles. Then you won't step back from your hatred, extreme partisanship and emotion.
It's unfortunate,. You are in many ways the left's version of QAnon. What I'd suggest you do is take a step back and ponder the possibility that the exercise you are engaged in is exactly the same exercise you criticize Trumpers for engaging in. Not necessarily the minor criminal acts, but the reaction and irrational debate.
I would think most reasonable people, on both sides, would be disturbed by not only the events of 1/6, but also some of the prosecutions. Anecdotally, I think this is true based on my experiences. Anecdotally it doesn't apply to person like yourself.
FWIW, I can predict your response to this. Surprise me.
Sentence is completely reasonable.
Others are gonna get a decade or so in federal prison.
Again, completely reasonable.
Reasonable people on the right are an endangered species but keep projecting.
Go review the court case if you want to know why.
Perhaps read what the judge said. It's why we have courts.
You probably slurped up all the "voter fraud" allegations that evaporated when they got into an actual court, too.
I've read the court documents. What specific part are you referring to? I'm assuming you have a PACAR account like I do, so be very specific.
This should be fun.
Then post what you disagree with. And be specific with how it is "unfair" and inconsistent with sentencing guidelines.
The weapons charge.
Now you go. You're the one that claimed I should look up things. Since I already have, you go ahead and look up why I believe the weapons charge is an overreach. Because it is obvious you haven't looked anything up, and don't understand the case.
I suspect you won't.
Based on your responses I don't see much reason to engage an argument where one party, you, don't really even understand what the facts are. I might have engaged if it seemed like you had some knowledge.
The funniest thing of all in Reffit's conviction was that his son's testimony against him was the biggest factor in getting convicted by reports.
How great that your own family thinks you're a POS?
Next............
How great that your own family thinks you're a POS?
Next............
Sounds like several GOP members of Congress. HmmmThe funniest thing of all in Reffit's conviction was that his son's testimony against him was the biggest factor in getting convicted by reports.
How great that your own family thinks you're a POS?
Next............
The funniest thing of all in Reffit's conviction was that his son's testimony against him was the biggest factor in getting convicted by reports.
How great that your own family thinks you're a POS?
Next............
And isn't this the case with the OOJ charges, which can carry 20 yrs a pop?
Good question. Now go search for the answer. Because the evidence introduced certainly makes the weapon a fairly significant question.
Should we move on to the theft of government property now?
FWIW, the guy broke several laws, that's not my issue. The overcharging for purposes of sentencing guidelines is.
But to understand this, one must put aside the politics of all of it. Most won't, and actually since I'm a realist, I think this is fine. It will make unseating several elected officials that are worthless easier.
In an odd twist, the unreasonable positions by several on here will actually hurt their favored candidates in the next election. In many ways, extreme leftists are largely responsible for electing the man they most hate, Trump.
So you proved my point. The weapons charge was amended. The indictment wasn't as was originally envisioned.
The point you proved? Your response shows me that you essentially asked me to read court documents, which I have, and now everyone knows you haven't. Your argument is pretty uninformed, and certainly not based on court documents that you suggested i read. Possibly you should read them before you make statements? Or you can continue to post, and prove what I already know.
It is true you'd need a PACAR account to have the specificity that I have. But it is also true that through DOJ releases, one could put together the relevant, and factual information. It's pretty obvious you haven't even done this. Relevant might not apply to you. Lack of being factual and specific does.
So?
He was convicted, was he not? Wasn't this the case that went 5-for-5 on the counts?
You don't seem to be as "up to speed" on this as you're claiming here.
If they "overcharge", then the jury is the mechanism that can decide "not guilty" on the charges that aren't supported by the evidence.
You're welcome.
Just because you hate America, doesn't mean I should not wish the worst of those trying to destroy it.
This must be the first time in history the jury has decided a case before it has gone to trial, and a jury has been selected?
Interesting. I guess I'm all over the place. Can you post some sort of link to the jury decision you reference?
This would be incorrect. The jury would be the last remedy. A couple of steps before that happens. Which I'm sure you are aware of.
Imagine all the plea agreements being sought today?
LOfickenL
LOfickenL
Let's see, today I learned that a jury is to blame for a verdict in a case where the jury hasn't even been selected yet, and the trial hasn't even begun. Somehow we have a verdict, even though there is no verdict, and somehow the jury has spoken, even though the jury hasn't even been selected.
I learned the circular logic that when nothing is known about a subject, the rebuttal should be to tell the other person to go read something about the subject. When the posts make it pretty obvious who should take some time to educate themselves.
I learned that civil liberties, which has formerly always been a liberal issue, is only a liberal issue when they agree with the people who allegedly are having their civil liberties violated, but violation of civil liberties when they disagree is o.k. Selective civil liberties. Just as the framers had envisioned.
I learned that federal criminal justice reform, formerly a liberal issue, is only an issue when it doesn't impact their side. Selective criminal justice reform.
I learned when a poster knows nothing about the subject, they think it is adult to post death wishes.
Mostly I re-learned that most that post about politics on message boards don't really understand most issues, but they just post what they hear on television, and Tweets.
And I learned all of this from posts of others. You would think if one wanted to win an argument one might be bothered to at least do a quick Google search before they posted items that are not only demonstratively false, but gave clear evidence into just how uniformed they really are.
I also learned that by not posting my own personal opinion, several on here think they're are mind readers, and can tell me which side I favor. Now based on all of their inaccuracies, I doubt serious poeple pay too much attention to them, but it has proven both entertaining and enlightening.
And actually I have the most respect for the person that posted the death wish. Not that I agree with, or think this type of post is appropriate for anyone over the age of 3, but at least they didn't pretend to understand a subject, when they didn't. At least their post was somewhat intellectually honest in that they don't want to understand an issue, they just want a pound of flesh. I don't agree with the position, but they were honest about it, and not pretending to have any understanding, unlike most everyone else in this thread. Who by virtue of their own posts show the word they don't understand the issue(s). Or really even have taken 5 minutes to do the most basic research.
Folks this is the definition of an echo chamber. Which is fine, but please understand as you bravely post (possibly on your employer's time) you are posting partisan political talking points to others that already agree with you. Maybe this is therapeutic. I don't know.
I learned the circular logic that when nothing is known about a subject, the rebuttal should be to tell the other person to go read something about the subject. When the posts make it pretty obvious who should take some time to educate themselves.
I learned that civil liberties, which has formerly always been a liberal issue, is only a liberal issue when they agree with the people who allegedly are having their civil liberties violated, but violation of civil liberties when they disagree is o.k. Selective civil liberties. Just as the framers had envisioned.
I learned that federal criminal justice reform, formerly a liberal issue, is only an issue when it doesn't impact their side. Selective criminal justice reform.
I learned when a poster knows nothing about the subject, they think it is adult to post death wishes.
Mostly I re-learned that most that post about politics on message boards don't really understand most issues, but they just post what they hear on television, and Tweets.
And I learned all of this from posts of others. You would think if one wanted to win an argument one might be bothered to at least do a quick Google search before they posted items that are not only demonstratively false, but gave clear evidence into just how uniformed they really are.
I also learned that by not posting my own personal opinion, several on here think they're are mind readers, and can tell me which side I favor. Now based on all of their inaccuracies, I doubt serious poeple pay too much attention to them, but it has proven both entertaining and enlightening.
And actually I have the most respect for the person that posted the death wish. Not that I agree with, or think this type of post is appropriate for anyone over the age of 3, but at least they didn't pretend to understand a subject, when they didn't. At least their post was somewhat intellectually honest in that they don't want to understand an issue, they just want a pound of flesh. I don't agree with the position, but they were honest about it, and not pretending to have any understanding, unlike most everyone else in this thread. Who by virtue of their own posts show the word they don't understand the issue(s). Or really even have taken 5 minutes to do the most basic research.
Folks this is the definition of an echo chamber. Which is fine, but please understand as you bravely post (possibly on your employer's time) you are posting partisan political talking points to others that already agree with you. Maybe this is therapeutic. I don't know.
I love it when the educated Trumpers show up. As if stating their beliefs more eloquently makes them any less detached from reality. Frankly, worse than the mouth breathers who are easy to spot.
I voted for Trump?
What exactly do you think my position is?
I have some time to burn since I between Iowa and Florida for a short period, so I'll engage this as I think it will be entertaining.
I'll help get you started. Who I voted for (or more accurately who you assume I voted for) has no bearing on this topic. It really doesn't and this should be self evident.
As for my position, I've hinted at it, let' see if you can figure it out. Surprise me.
Trump lied to us beginning June 2020 about the election and issues, sabotaged the USPS for mail in ballots, was told he lost and removed any Functioning Adult in his inner circle that was left days after it was clear he lost, went down a path to throw out the Electoral votes and install alternate Electors in several states, coordinated directly with stop the steal organizers as he himself promoted it, called the GA SOS asking for 11,781 more votes, his supporters that showed up 100% were there to delay and or stop the certification of the Electotal college vote count and there was several GOP lawmakers in on it. All facts. In a Functioning Democracy everyone including Trump would be held for treason by now but he's weakened our DOJ and the rule of law and alas, here we are. Slowly chugging along. You are an embarrassment and disgrace of an American citizen, complicit at best to an attempt at the overthrow of our Republic.
Last edited:
Your post above is delusional. It's short on facts, and long on opinion. And that is demonstrable. Easily demonstrable.
If half of what you claim is true, Trump will be indicted. But you give yourself an easy out at the end of your rant by blaming the DOJ, which you claim has been weakened by Trump. A DOJ that isn't under his control, and probably wasn't even when he was POTUS.
I saved the best for last: "You are an embarrassment and disgrace of an American citizen, complicit at best to an attempt at the overthrow of our Republic." Res ipsa loquitur.
When short of facts, and apparently when angry, some resort to calling names. Also exaggeration. It is always a sign of maturity and intelligence.
I'm a combat vet. I am routinely asked for my input from elected officials from both major political parties. Ad infinitium... Your experience in public and community service doesn't approach mine, and if it does, I can't imagine elected officials from both major parties seek your advice. It's possible, but unlikely, one party does, but no way both patierties. And you know why.
I find you insulting, juvenile, and not well informed.
What's not accurate with what I said above? All is fact and readily available if you are able to read and comprehend words. There's even video of Trump saying what I mentioned above with his big, beautiful words.
Let's just take one.
"an attempt at the overthrow of our Republic"
Can you link any admissible evidence supporting these types of charges? Can you cite one current or pending charge from 1/6 that comes close to this?
Your argument is emotional. I get that, but I think you should probably also come to an understanding of this.
You'll know I'm correct when there are no indictments close to this, and no indictment of Trump. Maybe an indictment, but no conviction.
I'm just telling you, you're way out there, with no supporting facts backing it. AS I suggested earlier, no different than a QAnon believer.
Meanwhile...
Mom's basement refs aren't really too far off here...
Mom's basement refs aren't really too far off here...
I was referring to Guy Reffit's case
5-for-5, bro.
You were bitching about a "firearms" charge; if another existing charge has been put forth for another rioter, I'm not sure how you're going to claim it's "not appropriate".
Similar threads
