January 6th rioter found guilty of all 5 charges

[martybegan]

It's all about Trump Tower Moscow. Trump has gay love for Putin because he really, really, really wants that Tower.

Putin uses Trump Tower Moscow as a carrot to keep Trump moving in his direction.

One building overtly influences as guy who owns dozens of them? And golf courses, and resorts, and a Brand?

This is a new low for you, G5.

 

[Aldo Raine]

He was found guilty on all charges and is to go on trial? I don't get it? Can you help?

And what charges? Are they significantly egregious crimes on which he's been convicted? Or has he even been convicted yet?

I believe 1 of the charges carries an up to 20 year sentence. I think it is the 1 about trying to stop the counting of the electoral votes.
MAGA

 

[Aldo Raine]

B-b-b-b-b-but he was just trespassing!

I thought it was more just like another tour of the Capitol building? So many lies, so hard to keep track!!!!!!
MAGA

 

[Aldo Raine]

Oh! So you were personally there in the room when he said this! Interesting.

His children testified to it!!!!!!
MAGA

 

[toobfreak]

January 6th rioter found guilty of all 5 charges.

Hey! You actually got one after 14 months! That makes you one for about 5,000!

That is about 4,990 more people than ever cared to hear anything JOE had to say. But guess what? He will now sue for mistrial as he can say the jury was tainted with prejudice from excessive media. Maybe they will hold the next trial in Texas or Florida.

 

[bendog]

Are y'all really this stupid? I hope not. Useful idiots for one moment and then trashed away by their own at a later time.

Stay away from my plate or prepare to find your hand pinned to the table with my fork.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Yeah, "how can it be a coup, if there's no charge of cooing?!?!"

Kookooing?
MAGA

 

[Aldo Raine]

The government has a recording of him making the threat.

All caught up now?

Yup, his son recorded the raving, ranting idiot!!!!
MAGA

 

[BackAgain]

Strictly true. In the end, Trump is very jealous of Putin. So, while he clearly admires Putin's brutality and authoritarianism, we know Trump despises his"betters", deep down.

More made up shit by Farty. Phew. What a stench.

 

[JimH52]

Cry your little cultist heart out all day. At the end of your tantrum, this will still all be based directly on Words that fell right out of the orange pile of shit's mouth.

Which makes you look pathetic.

trump shat on US Intelligence on the world stage....and cowardly bowed to Putin's big lie for all the world to see.

 

[JimH52]

I believe 1 of the charges carries an up to 20 year sentence. I think it is the 1 about trying to stop the counting of the electoral votes.
MAGA

These people will go to jail while the main instigator walks free and repeats the BIG LIE.

 

[Aldo Raine]

These people will go to jail while the main instigator walks free and repeats the BIG LIE.

True of all political and financial elites, nothing new here!
MAGA

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Stay away from my plate or prepare to find your hand pinned to the table with my fork.

'
Now thats good, bd!!

 

[Lastamender]

'Ton of FBI Informants' Involved in Jan. 6, Says NYT Reporter - Todd Starnes

Project Veritas published a bombshell video on Tuesday showing Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times correspondent, Matthew Rosenberg, speaking about the events of January 6, 2021, in a way that contradicts his own reporting.

www.toddstarnes.com

Rosenberg, who covers national security matters for the Times, says on the undercover video that “there were a ton of FBI informants among the people who attacked the Capitol.”

Soundbites of Rosenberg published Tuesday show him saying, “They [media] were making too big a deal. They were making this an organized thing that it wasn’t.”

The NYT pushes propaganda. This guy just told the truth.

 

[forkup]

You apparently can’t read. Or comprehend. We’ve been hearing from our liberal and Democrap fellow Board members for quite a while that 1/6 was an “insurrection”. It wasn’t. Accordingly, when they trumpet a conviction for some shit one asshole did do (I don’t doubt he had a gun on him, for example), their joy is meant to congratulate themselves on all of their prior shit.

I don’t care if the one particular member who posted the OP declared it amounted to proof of an insurrection or not. I didn’t say he said it. I’m just happy to point out that it doesn’t support that whole bullshit claim.

We already know that seditious conspiracy charges were filed. Way to play catch-up. We also know that some poor bastard pleaded guilty to it. So what? I consider it a bogus charge and I don’t care if one defendant “admitted” it or not. And that’s not an “insurrection” anyway.

So, don’t accuse me of employing a strawman. I didn’t. You draw your inferences without evidentiary support. That’s all you, boobie.

I don’t care if the one particular member who posted the OP declared it amounted to proof of an insurrection or not.

Oh, so you don't care that you are trying to say that the OP you choose to reply to actually claimed it was an insurrection without him actually making the claim? Interesting position.

We also know that some poor bastard pleaded guilty to it. So what? I consider it a bogus charge and I don’t care if one defendant “admitted” it or not.

Really?

I know it will shock you!! But they have a tad more expertise on proper charging than you ever will have.

What is it? You trust the expertise of those that press the charges or you feel that your own opinion is more valid? I don't mind someone being condesending. But at least have the decency to be consistent towards who you believe.

So, don’t accuse me of employing a strawman. I didn’t. You draw your inferences without evidentiary support.

There was no charge of insurrection nor of seditious conspiracy.

Your words seem to be all the "evidentiary support" I require. Since the OP claimed neither.

 

[BackAgain]

Oh, so you don't care that you are trying to say that the OP you choose to reply to actually claimed it was an insurrection without him actually making the claim? Interesting position.

Really?

What is it? You trust the expertise of those that press the charges or you feel that your own opinion is more valid? I don't mind someone being condesending. But at least have the decency to be consistent towards who you believe.





Your words seem to be all the "evidentiary support" I require. Since the OP claimed neither.

Oh. You’re quick. Right after I posted that I don’t care if the OP member made that specific claim or not, you somehow figured out that I don’t care if he did or not. Your IQ may actually be measurable.

Once again — for you cognitively impaired types: the triumphant declaration that some idiot got convicted for some crimes for the 1/6 non-insurrection doesn’t mean shit. That’s his problem. But it doesn’t support anything of any significance to the ongoing debate about what did and what didn’t happen on 1/6.

Prior to the breathless OP, with or without a conviction, we already knew that a smallish fraction of the protestors that day had trespassed and some of them committed acts damaging property and some of them engaged in assaults. And?

I’ve never supported their criminal behavior and I’m perfectly content that some of them probably deserve to be convicted of those crimes. Many conservatives here are of similar mind as me. But convictions for the crimes some of them did commit doesn’t have anything to do with the debate about whether it was a right wing “coup” attempt or an “insurrection” or “seditious conspiracy.” ((pssst. It was none of those things.))

 

[forkup]

Oh. You’re quick. Right after I posted that I don’t care if the OP member made that specific claim or not, you somehow figured out that I don’t care if he did or not. Your IQ may actually be measurable.

Once again — for you cognitively impaired types: the triumphant declaration that some idiot got convicted for some crimes for the 1/6 non-insurrection doesn’t mean shit. That’s his problem. But it doesn’t support anything of any significance to the ongoing debate about what did and what didn’t happen on 1/6.

Prior to the breathless OP, with or without a conviction, we already knew that a smallish fraction of the protestors that day had trespassed and some of them committed acts damaging property and some of them engaged in assaults. And?

I’ve never supported their criminal behavior and I’m perfectly content that some of them probably deserve to be convicted of those crimes. Many conservatives here are of similar mind as me. But convictions for the crimes some of them did commit doesn’t have anything to do with the debate about whether it was a right wing “coup” attempt or an “insurrection” or “seditious conspiracy.” ((pssst. It was none of those things.))

The funny thing is that you are " perfectly content that some probably deserve to be convicted of those crimes". Yet you reject that "those crimes" include seditious conspiracy despite guilty pleas that admit to it. Something that requires both a confession in open court and the judge actually accepting that the confession actually amounts to the charge.

 

[BackAgain]

The funny thing is that you are " perfectly content that some probably deserve to be convicted of those crimes". Yet you reject that "those crimes" include seditious conspiracy despite guilty pleas that admit to it. Something that requires both a confession in open court and the judge actually accepting that the confession actually amounts to the charge.

Yes. One thing could be connected to another. But there’s no evidence for it. So, no. It’s not “funny” as you mistakenly claim. It is discernment. You might wanna give it a try someday! The crimes charged did not require and did not involve admission of seditious conspiracy. You’re simply making shit up.

You’re also wrong on what constitutes a “charge.” Helpful temporal context, just for you: charges precede guilty pleas or trial convictions.

 

[forkup]

Yes. One thing could be connected to another. But there’s no evidence for it. So, no. It’s not “funny” as you mistakenly claim. It is discernment. You might wanna give it a try someday! The crimes charged did not require and did not involve admission of seditious conspiracy. You’re simply making shit up.

You’re also wrong on what constitutes a “charge.” Helpful temporal context, just for you: charges precede guilty pleas or trial convictions.

But there’s no evidence for it.

You don't think a confession amounts to evidence? And charges do indeed precede guilty pleas. But a guilty plea requires the person not just admitting to the charges but the charges actually being confirmed as accurate by a judge. Otherwise, a person's guilty plea would not be accepted by a judge.

I did not make ANY claim about what a charge is. In fact, the charge is unambiguous. I made claims about what a guilty plea means. I don't know if you are ignorant of it or are again purposefully trying to put up a strawman?

 

[BackAgain]

You don't think a confession amounts to evidence? And charges do indeed precede guilty pleas. But a guilty plea requires the person not just admitting to the charges but the charges actually being confirmed as accurate by a judge. Otherwise, a person's guilty plea would not be accepted by a judge.

I did not make ANY claim about what a charge is. In fact, the charge is unambiguous. I made claims about what a guilty plea means. I don't know if you are ignorant of it or are again purposefully trying to put up a strawman?

Not always. No. Sometimes, in our criminal Justice system, defendants choose the lesser of two evils: plead guilty even to crimes of which they aren’t actually guilty or go to trial and risk a much worse sentence if convicted anyway. Also, if you plead guilty to a crime, it may be evidence or used as evidence as to you. It isn’t of any use as evidence against me, at least not standing alone.

A judge does have the right to reject a plea. But the way you couch it is sloppy or just ignorant. If you are charged with a crime, and wish to plead guilty, you usually have to tell the judge what you did (and it needs to satisfy the elements of the charged crime). If you try to hem and haw, a judge probably shouldn’t accept your plea. With all that said, so what?

Again, defendants often do plead guilty to avoid worse consequences. In the case under discussion in the OP, it was a trial conviction and not a plea, anyway.