Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Show me that his purpose was to “disrupt” a congressional proceeding. I’d suggest that burden is on the proponent. By contrast, I believe his purpose was merely to be heard before the certification might make his being hear a moot point.The “improper purpose”, to me, would be indicated by him being in a place he knew he wasn’t supposed to be (past police barricades and into a building that was broken into) to disrupt a congressional proceeding. That’s how I would interpret that.
His improper purpose of being there is called trespass.As opposed to, let’s say that there happened to be a tourist who got lost in the Capitol and he’s carrying a large bag. Everyone panics, thinking it could be a bomb and the room is evacuated until it’s discovered that this was just an honest mistake. This would be impeding on the official proceeding but without “improper purpose.” Something like that.
According to … ?That’s my take on it. Looks like the judges and lawyers agree with me too,
And it could turn out that way. But then again, maybe not.so I think I’m on the right track.
Which judges are you making reference to?Still haven’t heard your take on all this. Go ahead and explain why me and the judges are wrong.
Too bad you didn’t. But your odd reaction to being told the truth isn’t my concern.Damn near spat up mah spleen.
Nope. Answered already. Repeating your own lie doesn’t make me a liar. You liar.So you can’t show me your response to post #259. You ran away from that one, like I fucking said.
And now you got caught in a lie.
Richard Barnett, the guy who put his feet on Pelosi’s desk, went to trial and was convicted of the same crime. Was his purpose any different?Show me that his purpose was to “disrupt” a congressional proceeding. I’d suggest that burden is on the proponent. By contrast, I believe his purpose was merely to be heard before the certification might make his being hear a moot point.
It goes beyond that. A lost tourist could have been trespassing. These people were there for a purpose. They were there to be disruptive and they ended up impeding the official proceeding.His improper purpose of being there is called trespass.
And you will be fine with either outcome?And it could turn out that way. But then again, maybe not.
The judge in the Richard Barnett case, among others. Seems that they’re on my side in this one. So you have an uphill battle.Which judges are you making reference to?
You had no response to post #259. Therefore you’re a liar.Nope. Answered already.
I have never run away.
What one guy says his purpose was doesn’t impute that alleged purpose to others.Richard Barnett, the guy who put his feet on Pelosi’s desk, went to trial and was convicted of the same crime. Was his purpose any different?
Yep.The people who peacefully protested without breaking into the Capitol were there to be heard.
Nope.The people who broke into the Capitol were there to disrupt the official proceeding at the very least.
A vague possibility. No evidence for your claim, however.Some were there for much, much worse.
To be heard.It goes beyond that. A lost tourist could have been trespassing. These people were there for a purpose.
According to you. But you don’t get to speak for them.They were there to be disruptive
It did get delayed.and they ended up impeding the official proceeding.
What?And you will be fine with either outcome?
Nope. It seems in that case a particular judge agreed with your view or overlooked the question entirely.The judge in the Richard Barnett case, among others. Seems that they’re on my side in this one. So you have an uphill battle.
YepI do. It is clear.
Was the official proceeding obstructed or impeded? Yes or no.
Why didn’t he use it as a spear?LOL
Spear...
Spear...
Looks the same to me. If Barnett and and Chansley have different purposes, please explain what makes them different. If they aren’t different, then they should both be convicted of the same crime.What one guy says his purpose was doesn’t impute that alleged purpose to others.
Judge disagrees with you.Nope.
”Hang Mike Pence!”A vague possibility. No evidence for your claim, however.
And the judge.According to you. But you don’t get to speak for them.
What?
Oh it wasn’t just that judge. Several other idiots were found guilty of the same thing. I was just using that one as an example to show that the legal minds in charge agree with me, not you.Nope. It seems in that case a particular judge agreed with your view or overlooked the question entirely.
They obstructed the proceedingsWhat one guy says his purpose was doesn’t impute that alleged purpose to others.
Yep.
Nope.
A vague possibility. No evidence for your claim, however.
To be heard.
According to you. But you don’t get to speak for them.
It did get delayed.
What?
Nope. It seems in that case a particular judge agreed with your view or overlooked the question entirely.
So these people obstructed the official proceeding and should be found guilty of obstructing an official proceeding.
Where is the threat?Looks the same to me. If Barnett and and Chansley have different purposes, please explain what makes them different. If they aren’t different, then they should both be convicted of the same crime
The prosecutor and judge did, you betSo these people obstructed the official proceeding and should be found guilty of obstructing an official proceeding.
?Where is the threat?
And why would that be an issue?
You mean why didn't he wear big, bitey teeth as well?Why didn’t he use it as a spear?
None of the officers were injured were they? Why wouldn’t he have taken them down if his intent was physically motivated?You mean why didn't he wear big, bitey teeth as well?
View attachment 766037
