ADVERTISEMENT

Should Trump pardon or stop prosecuting J6 defendants?

Should Trump pardon or stop prosecuting J6 defendants?

  • Yes, all of them

    Votes: 7 7.2%
  • Yes, most of them

    Votes: 14 14.4%
  • Yes, some of them

    Votes: 13 13.4%
  • No

    Votes: 63 64.9%

  • Total voters
    97
no man GIF
 
Should be reviewed on a case by case basis and then dealt with fairly,.. Some will certainly deserve release.
 
No, just with his dad contributed to thousands of Ukrainian deaths doing something they shouldn't have been doing in the best of national interests. You are a fool.
Hopefully your kids, if you are able to procreate, aren't held accountable by another braindead moron.
 
If one wanted to be fair, there is no way to honestly answer that question without knowing each individual case and the specific facts. If there are individuals who committed crimes, then they should receive similar sentences as others who committed similar crimes in other situations. If there are those who were prosecuted in the J6 case that normally wouldn't have been in other instances, then those individuals need to be released. Their penalties should not be more severe just because the DOJ or some judge wanted to make a political point.
Fortunately, there are not many other instances of people attacking our nation's capital, so it is a little difficult to compare. I would hope people that do that would always be prosecuted.
 
Trump’s has indicated he’s going to do this. Curious how it’ll be perceived here on HBOT.

"Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."

-
Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787, letter to William Stephens Smith, the son-in-law of John Adams
 
"Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."

-
Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787, letter to William Stephens Smith, the son-in-law of John Adams
Different times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bcherod
I think Aardvark is actually pretty neutral and fair. You left out the part about no pardons. Why did you do that?
LOL. He tries to use a tone that is "neutral and fair." But he will always - always - defend everything Trump or his supports say and do. There is nothing Trump say or do that doesn't get an excuse.
 
Being dumb as a bag of rocks has never been an excuse for breaking the law. Trump's thugs that were charged and judicated all received fair trials and many were convicted. A convicted felon pardoning other felons just doesn't pass the smell test.
 
LOL. He tries to use a tone that is "neutral and fair." But he will always - always - defend everything Trump or his supports say and do. There is nothing Trump say or do that doesn't get an excuse.
Yet he said "no pardons" in his post, which is the exact opposite of Trump.
 
Being dumb as a bag of rocks has never been an excuse for breaking the law. Trump's thugs that were charged and judicated all received fair trials and many were convicted. A convicted felon pardoning other felons just doesn't pass the smell test.

*adjudicated
 
We're the people prosecuted who showed up at conservative judges homes to intimidate them?

If yes, then no he shouldn't stop, but if no, yeah only prosecute the ones who vandalized something or assaulted someone. Anyone who walked in because the door was open, strolled through and left should be let go.
 
seriously? i couldn't name a single specific person there regardless of culpability level because it's not exactly the sort of thing that I obsess over, nor do I know anyone who was actually down there.

You are right that being stupid is not a defense, though it usually does affect charging decisions (and overall investigation scope), as do the specific actions of the subjects as you note. Totally fine with all of that. and it is of course good that the guidelines have produced some uniformity. As I said, no pardons from me; this was rightfully handled differently than other disturbances, but we're four years out and it's time to wrap things up.
So, not a healthy chunk?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT