Judge Reminds RNC That Riot Was Not 'Legitimate Political Discourse'

[pknopp]

Yes you do, to some degree.
The point of "freedom of speech" requires you to protect that which you do not agree with.

I said I supported their right to protest. I just did not support what they were protesting.

Disagreeing does not change the fact you do have to support their right to protest.
The only time that changes is if they start killing people,

For like the 500th time, I said I supported their right to protest.

 

[Rigby5]

You are insane. You're declaring war on most of the people in the United States, I don't think so. Most people are not extremists, but for you to suggest such a thing means that you are an extremist.

Wrong.
Putting these demonstrators in jail is the declaration of war.
They were wrong, but still had the right to be heard the only ways left to them.
The people who allowed money to control media, voting, bureaucracy, police, courts, jails, etc, are the ones who forced this situation.

The whole system is totally and completely corrupt.
We just saw that with the WMD lies about Iraq that murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Congress is guilty.
They likely are the most corrupt and criminal organization in the whole country.
And the majority of the country likely agree.
So you likely are wrong about which side the majority of the country would be on.

For example, while I do not like Trump or think the election was stolen, I completely support the occupation of congress.
They need to be occupied on a regular basis.
We should have done that during Vietnam and dozens of other times the government was murdering people.

 

[Rigby5]

Not without proof
...physical, tangible evidence

...not based on lies.

...not based on someone out of the clear blue, just lawlessly CLAIMING so.

Wrong.
You do not need absolute proof in order to hold off certification of an election.
Elections are not like a trial where innocence is assumed and guilt has to be proven.
With elections, it is reversed, where guilt is assumed and innocence has to be proven.

The claims and examination should have been done publicly, not by judges in closed courtrooms.
It should have been televised and in congress.
It was done entirely wrong.
And no one still knows for certain.
The only reason I assume the election was not rigged is that to do so would require so many people, it would likely be impossible to keep it a secret.
That is all.
No one in the public has been given anything to go on at all.
It is a disgrace.

 

[Rigby5]

Trump sued and the courts begged him and begged him to bring his evidence to the courts. He brought nothing. Any lack of transparency would have been on the part of Trump.



Vote counting (despite the claims of some) are done in a bipartisan manner). If one wants to argue that both parties were out to screw Trump well................

Wrong.
I read some of the Trump supporter claims, and there were thousands of small irregularities.
Like all the poll watchers told to go home due to a building safety concern, and then carts of ballots brought out.
There were claims thousands of ballots showed up without the crease one would expect from being mailed.
Etc.
There likely are explanations for all this, but we were never told.
There was almost zero transparency.
It should NEVER have gone through the courts.
That is the wrong standard for an election.
It should have been televised and done by Congress, as the demonstrators wanted.
They were correct that it should have been a public process, not a closed judicial one.

 

[pknopp]

Wrong.
I read some of the Trump supporter claims, and there were thousands of small irregularities.
Like all the poll watchers told to go home due to a building safety concern, and then carts of ballots brought out.
There were claims thousands of ballots showed up without the crease one would expect from being mailed.
Etc.
There likely are explanations for all this, but we were never told.
There was almost zero transparency.
It should NEVER have gone through the courts.
That is the wrong standard for an election.
It should have been televised and done by Congress, as the demonstrators wanted.
They were correct that it should have been a public process, not a closed judicial one.

What was claimed and what happened were two very different things.

 

[Rigby5]

I said I supported their right to protest. I just did not support what they were protesting.



For like the 500th time, I said I supported their right to protest.

Ok, sorry, I just want to be sure.
I disagree with the claim the election was stolen as well, but these people likely should still not be going to jail in my opinion.
I would have put them on probation.
I believe they were stupid, not deliberately evil.

 

[Rigby5]

What was claimed and what happened were two very different things.

I agree.
But I also do not believe there was proper transparency and disclosure.

 

[Rigby5]

We're declaring war on the people who stole the election.

What would it take to resolve your suspicions?

 

[Rigby5]

The question is whether it's legitimate political discourse. Discourse implies a base level of mutual respect. A riot does not.

It depends upon how many factions there are.
If one faction is not allowed media access to the majority of the people, by a small corrupt faction, then riot against the faction blocking access is most certainly warranted.

Your description implies just 2 factions, one against the other.
That the reality is there are at least 3 factions, and the powerful elite controlling the media, courts, police, etc., are evil and require the use of force.
They are not the ones who the other 2 factions want discourse with.

And do not try to say they do not exist, because clearly they do.
Otherwise we would not have illegal things like the War on Drugs, mandated sentences, asset forfeiture, Iraqi WMD lies, etc.

There definitely is an evil faction we do not want discourse with, but need to be imprisoned instead.
And I do not think it was the Jan 6 demonstrators.
I think I can conduct discourse with them.
I think it is congress, police, politicians, the military industrial complex, etc., who are at fault.

 

[Rigby5]

How about these "protesters"

I do not like how the driver went through the demonstrators, but I can also understand they may have been acting out of fear?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How about these "protesters"

I do not like how the driver went through the demonstrators, but I can also understand they may have been acting out of fear?

That driver showed amazing restraint. He appears to have actually got through the crowd without damaging any of the subhuman animals that were trying to block him.

Some of the subhumans got into car and chased him down, then blocked and attacked him again, and he appears to have got away, again without damaging any of the animals.

I do not know how it would have played out in the first event, with me, but I can certainly tell you that if, after getting through that mob, if some of them had chased me down and attacked me, some of them would have wound up dead.

Remember Reginald Denny.

 

[Rigby5]

That driver showed amazing restraint. He appears to have actually got through the crowd without damaging any of the subhuman animals that were trying to block him.

Some of the subhumans got into car and chased him down, then blocked and attacked him again, and he appears to have got away, again without damaging any of the animals.

I do not know how it would have played out in the first event, with me, but I can certainly tell you that if, after getting through that mob, if some of them had chased me down and attacked me, some of them would have wound up dead.

Remember Reginald Denny.

But I have to wonder why this one car had to try to get through, when no one else was trying?
Was it intentional?
I do not have enough to know.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

I totally agree with Judge Amy Berman Jackson! What do you think?

Of course you do. You're a moron too.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But I have to wonder why this one car had to try to get through, when no one else was trying?
Was it intentional?
I do not have enough to know.

What does it matter? It's a public street, and he has a right to drive on it. Presumably, it was part of a reasonable route from where he had just been to where he was trying to go.

Why did Reginald Denny have to be driving his truck along Florence Avenue in Los Angeles on that fateful day in 1992?

 

[Rigby5]

What does it matter? It's a public street, and he has a right to drive on it. Presumably, it was part of a reasonable route from where he had just been to where he was trying to go.

Why did Reginald Denny have to be driving his truck along Florence Avenue in Los Angeles on that fateful day in 1992?

It matters because a car can easily take an alternative route and not harm an important demonstration.
A truck is more limited, and there was no visible demonstration that needed media appearance.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But I have to wonder why this one car had to try to get through, when no one else was trying?
Was it intentional?
I do not have enough to know.

What does it matter? It's a public street, and he has a right to drive on it. Presumably, it was part of a reasonable route from where he had just been to where he was trying to go.

Why did Reginald Denny have to be driving his truck along Florence Avenue in Los Angeles on that fateful day in 1992?

It matters because a car can easily take an alternative route and not harm an important demonstration.
A truck is more limited, and there was no visible demonstration that needed media appearance.

You seem to be assuming that the driver of that one car, knew there was a mob of subhuman criminal pieces of shit blocking that rode, and chose to go that way just to get into a conflict with them; that he knew that of multiple possible routes to get where he was trying to go, that was the one route that was most dangerous at that particular time, so that's the route he chose.

I find your assumptions to be absurd, and outright stupid.

In any event, it was his right to use that road, for its intended purpose. There is no right for subhuman criminal pieces of shit to deny actual human beings the right to use that road, and even less so for subhuman criminal pieces of shit to chase down and attack a human being for trying to assert their right to use it.

I suppose your perception depends on which side you are on—the side of human beings, or the side of subhuman pieces of criminal shit. I'm on the side of human beings. It is apparent that you on the other side.

 

[Rigby5]

You seem to be assuming that the driver of that one car, knew there was a mob of subhuman criminal pieces of shit blocking that rode, and chose to go that way just to get into a conflict with them; that he knew that of multiple possible routes to get where he was trying to go, that was the one route that was most dangerous at that particular time, so that's the route he chose.

I find your assumptions to be absurd, and outright stupid.

In any event, it was his right to use that road, for its intended purpose. There is no right for subhuman criminal pieces of shit to deny actual human beings the right to use that road, and even less so for subhuman criminal pieces of shit to chase down and attack a human being for trying to assert their right to use it.

I suppose your perception depends on which side you are on—the side of human beings, or the side of subhuman pieces of criminal shit. I'm on the side of human beings. It is apparent that you on the other side.

Yes, I think it is very possible the car driver deliberately took a route in order to try to diminish the demonstration.
And no I do not think any driver had more right to that road than the demonstrators did.

But I do not have enough information to be sure.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

A federal judge took aim at the Republican National Committee’s recent distortion of reality during sentencing for a violent Capitol rioter.

“It is not ‘legitimate political discourse,’” Judge Amy Berman Jackson said during her Thursday sentencing of Mark Leffingwell, who will spend six months in prison for assaulting police at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 last year.

Jackson was referring to the RNC’s description of the riot that left five people dead and more than 140 officers injured as “legitimate political discourse” when the group censured two of their own party members last week for daring to suggest that the Capitol attack was, in fact, an attack.

“So, it needs to be crystal clear that it is not patriotism,” she said. “It is not standing up for America. It is not ‘legitimate political discourse,’ and it is not justified to descend on the nation’s Capitol at the direction of a disappointed candidate and disrupt the national process.”

The RNC censured Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) for participating in the House committee investigating the attack.

Jan. 6 Sentencing Judge Reminds RNC That Riot Was Not 'Legitimate Political Discourse'

"It is not ‘legitimate political discourse,’ and it is not justified to descend on the nation’s Capitol at the direction of a disappointed candidate and disrupt the national process."

www.huffpost.com

I totally agree with Judge Amy Berman Jackson! What do you think?

You're an ignorant skank.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think she’s a political hack that should be impeached.

That conservatives lie about the 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy as being ‘legitimate political discourse’ is further proof of the right’s contempt for the rule of law and our democratic institutions.

 

[j-mac]

That conservatives lie about the 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy as being ‘legitimate political discourse’ is further proof of the right’s contempt for the rule of law and our democratic institutions.

Look here, get it straight, America is a Republic....Not a Democracy....The only thing we use a democratic process for is electing our leaders....That you want to label this country as a Democracy is a purposeful shift away from America being a Constitutional Republic, and won't work.