....as long as we are talking about sedition ....

[Indeependent]

“Extremist” This is where the credibility level drops to zero point shit."

I don't get your drift with that one, poster Booth.
Are you saying the term "extremists" applied to those FatboyPatriots ---- the Oathkeepers, the Proud Boys, the 3%'rs, et al, is inappropriate?
Why do you think that?
And would you suggest another term instead of 'extremists'?

And not one peep from you moral perverts about Libs destroying businesses and killing a few people along the way.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Not surprised."

When queried about what seems to his objection to the word 'extremists' as applied to the FatboyJackassPatriot who stormed the Capitol of the United States of America, on their way to savagely beating uniformed police and vandalize the halls, offices, furniture in the home of our American Congress..........well, poster JWBooth seemingly doesn't believe that is 'extreme' behavior?

So be it.

We all were raised in this America with different values and differing awareness to the rule of law, and respect towards our men and women who serve in uniform protecting our society.

Poster JWBooth...seemingly believes that beating the crap out of those uniformed American servants is......if not way way cool......well, it ain't all that extreme ....per his standard of behavior and regard for the rule of law.

I respectfully, demur.

 

[Indeependent]

"Not surprised."

When queried about what seems to his objection to the word 'extremists' as applied to the FatboyJackassPatriot who stormed the Capitol of the United States of America, on their way to savagely beating uniformed police and vandalize the halls, offices, furniture in the home of our American Congress..........well, poster JWBooth seemingly doesn't believe that is 'extreme' behavior?

So be it.

We all were raised in this America with different values and differing awareness to the rule of law, and respect towards our men and women who serve in uniform protecting our society.

Poster JWBooth...seemingly believes that beating the crap out of those uniformed American servants is......if not way way cool......well, it ain't all that extreme ....per his standard of behavior and regard for the rule of law.

I respectfully, demur.

You Progs have become much smarter; just attack anything and anyone not Federal and it’s all good.
We used to call you Nazis.

 

[Chillicothe]

And not one peep from you moral perverts about Libs destroying businesses and killing a few people along the way.

I have no idea who the prolific poster "Indeependent" refers to when claiming "moral perverts".

But beyond his invective aimed at who knows who on his moral perversion scale, his other seeming assertion, to wit: "Libs" destroying business and killing people'...is also confusing.

Who are those "Libs" he references?

So, here we are poster Indeependent. You make seeming vague assertions about people you do not identify and who, per your world order, did bad things.

OK, you be you.

But it would help a whole helluva lot if you could be a tad more articulate and fulsome in your condemnations of somebody you seem aggrieved by.
Being specific generally aids in adult discussion.
Just sayin'.

Just trying to help you be a better communicator, Indeependent.

 

[Indeependent]

And not one peep from you moral perverts about Libs destroying businesses and killing a few people along the way.

You have no idea because you’re an immoral moron.

I have no idea who the prolific poster "Indeependent" refers to when claiming "moral perverts".

But beyond his invective aimed at who knows who on his moral perversion scale, his other seeming assertion, to wit: "Libs" destroying business and killing people'...is also confusing.

Who are those "Libs" he references?

So, here we are poster Indeependent. You make seeming vague assertions about people you do not identify and who, per your world order, did bad things.

OK, you be you.

But it would help a whole helluva lot if you could be a tad more articulate and fulsome in your condemnations of somebody you seem aggrieved by.
Being specific generally aids in adult discussion.
Just sayin'.

Just trying to help you be a better communicator, Indeependent.

 

[Gdjjr]

I'm thinkin' you are saying that it wasn't an attack without weapons or an armed force.

Can you read? words mean things- or they don't- except for the presstitutes and lawyers- are you one?

 

[Gdjjr]

We all were raised in this America with different values and differing awareness to the rule of law, and respect towards our men and women who serve in uniform protecting our society.

If you're alleged awareness is not founded on truth- guess what that does? And, you ain't alone- if that makes you feel better. People you may not like, or agree with, are the same way- respect is a 2 way street too. Respect has to be shown before getting respect- that = giving respect to earn respect = self respect- one can't be had without the other- clothing, or title is immaterial-

Respect comes from acknowledging that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights (truth which all awareness should be founded in and on) and acting accordingly- bullying because of clothing or title is demanding respect- that ain't earned- an office or position can be respected, but, the holder oc office or position has to act respectfully, first, which is in accordance with being a Public SERVANT!

 

[Gdjjr]

Who are those "Libs" he references?

Using a broad brush is part and parcel to a lack of respect. To wit: Presstitutes and professional liars, i.e., law writers and lawyers- example(s)- all around you every day- no, I have 0 respect for people who lie for their job- so, am I broad brushing? Yes and no- when I see/hear an honorable person, I show them respect- when I see liars at work, no, they get no respect from me. As I stated, previously, respect is a 2 way street-

 

[ABikerSailor]

We all were raised in this America with different values and differing awareness to the rule of law, and respect towards our men and women who serve in uniform protecting our society.

If you're alleged awareness is not founded on truth- guess what that does? And, you ain't alone- if that makes you feel better. People you may not like, or agree with, are the same way- respect is a 2 way street too. Respect has to be shown before getting respect- that = giving respect to earn respect = self respect- one can't be had without the other- clothing, or title is immaterial-

Respect comes from acknowledging that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights (truth which all awareness should be founded in and on) and acting accordingly- bullying because of clothing or title is demanding respect- that ain't earned- an office or position can be respected, but, the holder oc office or position has to act respectfully, first, which is in accordance with being a Public SERVANT!

You know, I agree with this. There have been several officers who I worked for while serving in the Navy, and they were absolute crappy leaders. However, because they outranked me, I still had to respect them. My solution? I respected the uniform and their rank, but still thought of them as crappy people.

 

[Gdjjr]

There have been several officers who I worked for while serving in the Navy, and they were absolute crappy leaders. However, because they outranked me, I still had to respect them. My solution? I respected the uniform and their rank, but still thought of them as crappy people.

I was in the Navy as well- age 17 to 21- I didn't know any better- I respected my elders. Period.
However, my assertions, still stand, about Public SERVANTS- they serve we the stinky tourist- not vice versa- that tells me, they don't respect their masters- their knowledge isn't/wasn't founded in truth- they believe they are special and entitled because of their position- they ain't. Their position is- not the billet filler-

 

[Chillicothe]

From poster Indeependent[/QUOTE]
'.....because you’re an immoral moron."
[/QUOTE]
Immoral?
Ummm, well I suppose that would be situational. Can go either way. Depends on the circumstances. But your concerns over my moral turpitude are duly noted.

Moron?
Ah, shux, that too can be situational. Circumstantial. There have been times where I kinda thought I wasn't anywhere near being the smart guy in the room. In fact, knew I wasn't.
But then, there've been other times.

But your concern over my, umm, horsepower....are duly noted.

.................................................................................

Can you read?

Ah, poster gdjr., see the response just above.
Sometimes when it is in English and I'm familiar with the words.....well yeah, fairly regularly I can noodle my way through a page. Still, I need to concentrate.
Now, if it is Japanese, or Swahili, Mandarin, French.....well, I'll confess I struggle.

And how do you do with any or all of them?

So, with my confessional behind us.....let's go back to poster Gdjr's seeming suggestion that there was no attack on the police or the Capitol on January 6th.

May I ask the forum, who else supports the un-attack theory? ('Head-fake' theory?)
Who else supports Don Trump's "lovefest" (his word, not mine) theory.

 

[playtime]

Seditious conspiracy
The kind of sedition that could be an issue in the Jan. 6 legal fallout involves acts, not just speech.

Under current federal law, a seditious conspiracy is defined as two or more persons conspiring to do one of two things by force. One is to overthrow the Government of the United States. The other is “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” The law comes with a fine or imprisonment up to 20 years, or both.

that is exactly what the oath keepers, proudboys & 3%ers were doing.

Oath Keeper planned with Proud Boys, Three Percenters before Capitol attack, prosecutors say
Katie Wedell Kevin Johnson
USA TODAY


The leader of the Florida Oath Keepers coordinated with members of two other extremist groups prior to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, federal prosecutors said in a court filing Tuesday.

The filing, arguing that Kelly Meggs should remain in jail, includes records of Facebook messages in which he discusses plans for Jan. 6 and says he is working with leaders from the Proud Boys and Three Percenters. Members of all three groups have been charged in the assault on the Capitol.

It's the first time prosecutors have presented evidence of wider coordination among extremist groups.

Oath Keeper planned with Proud Boys, Three Percenters before Capitol attack, prosecutors say

“Extremist” This is where the credibility level drops to zero point shit.

LOL!!!! the fact that you think it wasn't an extreme act carried out by actual extremists ... says much about *you*, cowboy.

you're dismissed.

 

[playtime]

Oath Keeper planned with Proud Boys, Three Percenters before Capitol attack, prosecutors say

Click bait- there was no attack- dip shit, except by the cops- good lord- you people are so ducking fumb it's a wonder you can tie your own shoes-

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is a follow-along thread to that excellent thread offered by the poster Toto.
(This one: Sedition Tracker sedition)

But what my avatar here offers is the fact-checker organization affiliated with the Tampa Times ---Politifact.
They published this piece yesterday:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could Jan. 6 rioters be charged with sedition?
PolitiFact: It seems likely, since there is significant evidence that they planned to interrupt the execution of a law.

By PolitiFact 3/24/2021

"In recent years, it’s been rare to see prosecutors file sedition charges. But there are signs that participants in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot could face such charges in the coming months.

Michael R. Sherwin, the federal prosecutor who until recently led the Justice Department’s investigation into the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, told CBS’ “60 Minutes” that some of the participants could soon face sedition-related charges.

“I personally believe the evidence is trending toward that, and probably meets those elements,” Sherwin said in an interview broadcast March 21. “I believe the facts do support those charges. And I think that, as we go forward, more facts will support that.”

Legal experts told PolitiFact they generally agreed with Sherwin’s assessment that a sedition prosecution could be appropriate for the attack on the Capitol, given what was happening in the building that day, and the trail of evidence the participants left behind.

We wanted to dive into what that means.

Sedition broadly refers to anti-government conduct. It’s important to recognize that there are two major varieties, which are often confused.

One type of sedition involves anti-government speech. Prosecutions for this type of sedition have a controversial history, with critics saying the government unfairly targeted constitutionally protected political dissent. This variety of sedition is often referred to as “seditious libel.”

The other type of sedition involves anti-government acts, rather than just speech. Prosecutions of this type are much more rare historically, but this is the category that would most likely apply to the events of Jan. 6.

Seditious conspiracy
The kind of sedition that could be an issue in the Jan. 6 legal fallout involves acts, not just speech.

Under current federal law, a seditious conspiracy is defined as two or more persons conspiring to do one of two things by force. One is to overthrow the Government of the United States. The other is “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” The law comes with a fine or imprisonment up to 20 years, or both.

Experts said a prosecution for conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government would be plausible, but challenging.

However, there’s another provision of the law available to prosecutors — conspiring to interfere with the execution of a law — that would be an easier vehicle for Jan. 6-related prosecutions, since the rioters who entered the Capitol were there as lawmakers were carrying out their constitutional duty to officially count the electoral votes for president.

“I believe there will be strong, prosecutable cases under the federal seditious conspiracy statute,” said Rodney A. Smolla, dean of Widener University’s Delaware Law School.

The rioters “clearly wanted to shut down by force the execution of the law then being voted upon in Congress,” said James Robenalt, a lawyer with an expertise in political crises. The law “doesn’t get much more squarely on point.”

To make a conspiracy case, prosecutors would have to prove intent and the existence of a concrete agreement among the participants. This is always a challenge for prosecutors, experts said, but in this case, they may have an advantage.

Many participants in the storming of the Capitol “left a documentary record on email, social media or videos which would provide clear evidence of an agreement,” said Carlton Larson, a law professor at the University of California-Davis. Some of them were members of specific anti-government groups or militias.

For their part, the defendants in a seditious conspiracy case are likely to raise First Amendment claims, and “argue they are being prosecuted for protected activities: advocating overthrow of government in the abstract, or engaging in political protest,” said Timothy Zick, a law professor at the College of William & Mary.

But experts said that if a tangible agreement is proven, a First Amendment defense would likely be weak.

“Conspiracy is not speech,” Stone said. “If you agree to rob a bank with someone else, you don’t get First Amendment protection” for your discussions."

(ps...underlining by my avatar)

Could Jan. 6 rioters be charged with sedition?

PolitiFact: It seems likely, since there is significant evidence that they planned to interrupt the execution of a law.

www.tampabay.com

..........................................................................................................................................

It gets curious-er and curious-er.
True that?

You have not seen SHIT yet, you little idiot.

There will be an extermination.

 

[Chillicothe]

You have not seen SHIT yet.....you little idiot.
There will be an extermination.

OK, let's go there: Whaddya have in mind with your ominous warning of extermination?

I don't meant to put you on the spot, poster Bootney, but you gotta admit you kinda sorta have a track-record on this venue for some pretty screechy tuff-guyisms. No?

In short, ---and I can't speak for all here ----but, in short, you have elbowed the Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf right of the stage....and now you are the one who comes across as Chicken Little with the sky about to fall any nano-second.

So, can you explain your latest keyboard huff'n'puff?
Perhaps if you offer an articulate plausible explanation on these "exterminations" you can mitigate your Chicken Little reputation.

Just sayin'.

 

[Dana7360]

And not one peep from you moral perverts about Libs destroying businesses and killing a few people along the way.

I have no idea who the prolific poster "Indeependent" refers to when claiming "moral perverts".

But beyond his invective aimed at who knows who on his moral perversion scale, his other seeming assertion, to wit: "Libs" destroying business and killing people'...is also confusing.

Who are those "Libs" he references?

So, here we are poster Indeependent. You make seeming vague assertions about people you do not identify and who, per your world order, did bad things.

OK, you be you.

But it would help a whole helluva lot if you could be a tad more articulate and fulsome in your condemnations of somebody you seem aggrieved by.
Being specific generally aids in adult discussion.
Just sayin'.

Just trying to help you be a better communicator, Indeependent.

All the person you're replying to is doing is trying to change the subject.

Please don't feed the trolls.

 

[miketx]

attack: take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war.

I'm thinkin' you are saying that it wasn't an attack without weapons or an armed force.

Is that right?

And, if you think that applies to the January 6th "lovefest" (Don Trump's words, not mine.)....well, I demur.

The FatboyPatriots had weapons. Watch the videos .
Did they have RPG's, or a 249SAW, well, I didn't see one.
Did they have iron rods, steel poles, clubs, chemical weapons?
Yupper, they did.
The JackassNinjaPatriots 'attacked' Capitol police, and the defense of that building.
Honestly, I'm mildly surprised you didn't see that.


And your characterization that only the police 'attacked'....is,.....well, it is noticeably strange.
If that's what you think, then persuade us that that is the only attack that happened.

Saddle up, Gd.

You don't accept presuade.

 

[Lastamender]

And not one peep from you moral perverts about Libs destroying businesses and killing a few people along the way.

I have no idea who the prolific poster "Indeependent" refers to when claiming "moral perverts".

But beyond his invective aimed at who knows who on his moral perversion scale, his other seeming assertion, to wit: "Libs" destroying business and killing people'...is also confusing.

Who are those "Libs" he references?

So, here we are poster Indeependent. You make seeming vague assertions about people you do not identify and who, per your world order, did bad things.

OK, you be you.

But it would help a whole helluva lot if you could be a tad more articulate and fulsome in your condemnations of somebody you seem aggrieved by.
Being specific generally aids in adult discussion.
Just sayin'.

Just trying to help you be a better communicator, Indeependent.

All the person you're replying to is doing is trying to change the subject.

Please don't feed the trolls.

He won't, it would be cannibalism.

 

[Gdjjr]

You don't accept presuade.

I accept persuade- I don't accept coercion as persuasion nor do I accept lies as truth-

 

[Chillicothe]

"You don't accept presuade."

"He won't, it would be cannibalism."

I confess, I do not even know what 'presuade' is.
Nor why, or how, cannibalism would come in to play.

So, is it too much for each poster above .....'miketx' and 'Lastamender'...........to explain to the forum just exactly what they have in mind with their above comments?