Steward Rhodes charged with seditious conspiracy

[colfax_m]

No, many people REFUSE to be a victim

Maybe, but that person ain't you. At every turn, you're claiming to be the victim of some evil conspiracy.

But in reality you've just been turned into a useful idiot for some real crooks.

 

[Meister]

Achieving justice is always important. Your repeated attempts to diminish this event won't change that.

But I get it. You're in a position where you cant defend these slobs, but at the same time you'll look weak to your fellow kool aid drinking trumpanzees if you say they belong in jail. So you're stuck skirting the line. Meanwhile you just attempt to diminish the event as if its no big deal. Pathetic.

Diminish what? A redefined word from liberals? Nothing new there, it's the only way they can connect it to their mantra.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Doesnt matter. These 11 traitors are most likely going to end up in a jail cell. And that will be a great day for real Americans. Of which you are not one.

It does matter because you keep calling them traitors but according to “the law”, they are not. Now, moments ago you went on about how these people had no respect for the law - which, I agree with you - yet, the Law is not calling them traitors or issued charges of insurrection. You are blinded by your own fury and are tripping up in your arguments. Step back from the vitriol and use logic. Ultimately, it really doesn’t matter that you call them traitors until the Law does.

 

[john doe 101]

Diminish what? A redefined word from liberals? Nothing new there, it's the only way they can connect it to their mantra.

You've repeatedly attempted to diminish the severity of 1/6 several times in this very thread. It's the only thing you can do as I explained.

 

[Meister]

Kamala Harris did not directly bail anybody out.

"Kamala Harris did not directly bail anybody out."
That is playing fast and loose with the actual truth, isn't it?
.....did not directly bail anybody out" Exactly what did you mean by "directly"?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Charges need to be proved, you moron. The mere fact of being charged doesn’t mean that the charged crimes occurred.

Yes. Federal prosecutors are inherently unserious people. There’s no way they have thought through any of the groundbreaking insights you posit.
Your desperation has left your commentary flaccid.

 

[BackAgain]

Their motivation is meaningless. Your motivation to commit a crime doesnt get you off the hook. I'm tired of explaining this. You sound like another dumb chimp I've talked to and blocked on here before. Probably the same dummy.

Fakey, I’ve tried patiently many times to explain this stuff to you but you are impervious to education. You are literally retarded.

Whether you have committed a crime at all depends on whether you had (at the time) the mens rea required for the commission of that crime. More precisely, in fact, your prospect of being convicted turns on whether the government can prove that culpable mental state beyond a reasonable doubt.

Therefore, your usual ignorance aside, evidence of the motive of the accused can absolutely be determinative about whether the gubmint can prove that the accused HAD the mens rea or not.

But I do agree with you on one point. I too am getting tired of having to repeat things for you and your exceptionally limited ability to comprehend anything.

 

[citygator]

Ladies and Gentlemen we have an insurrection.

 

[john doe 101]

It does matter because you keep calling them traitors but according to “the law”, they are not. Now, moments ago you went on about how these people had no respect for the law - which, I agree with you - yet, the Law is not calling them traitors or issued charges of insurrection. You are blinded by your own fury and are tripping up in your arguments. Step back from the vitriol and use logic. Ultimately, it really doesn’t matter that you call them traitors until the Law does.

Exactly. If i want to pre-emptively call them traitors before the glorious day when the judge hands down 20 year sentences, that is my right. Because that is what they are in my book from the evidence I've seen.

 

[BWK]

I was a prosecutor so I don’t need your definitions. The QUESTION I put to you was what is a “non-prosecutorial crime?”

Those were your typically retarded words. I am quite sure you have no clue what you meant. But if you do, it ain’t what you said.

That's a serious question? LOL! I'm not sure I can answer that with my straight key board in front of me.

 

[meaner gene]

Oh meager!

You won’t get an alert this time either. But you’ll still see it. And you’ll still run away:

Do you (1) condemn the Oath Keepers entirely OR do you (2) agree with them with regard to their hatred of fascism?

I condemn the leader of the oath keepers, along with the group as a whole. They are anti-government seditionists.

 

[BackAgain]

"Kamala Harris did not directly bail anybody out."
That is playing fast and loose with the actual truth, isn't it?
.....did not directly bail anybody out" Exactly what did you mean by "directly"?

Fakey is apparently saying that she didn’t post the bail or secure the bail bond.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Were you on Mars on January 6th?

Watching Fox. Same thing,

 

[BackAgain]

That's a serious question? LOL! I'm not sure I can answer that with my straight key board in front of me.

You can’t. You are apparently too determined to avoid admitting what you ignorantly posted.

 

[Meister]

You've repeatedly attempted to diminish the severity of 1/6 several times in this very thread. It's the only thing you can do as I explained.

I have always said that those who broke the law should get what is coming to them in a court of law.
What I have said is that it was a protest that turned into a riot. I stand by that and there isn't anything you
or your butt buddy FFI can say that will change those facts.

 

[BackAgain]

I condemn the leader of the oath keepers, along with the group as a whole. They are anti-government seditionists.

Oh. So close. They are explicitly anti-fascist. Do you condemn them for being anti-fascist?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Kamala Harris did not directly bail anybody out.
As far as cherry picking who is on the commission, if you think someone as fucking stupid as MTG or Boebert belongs anywhere near making any type of decision that affects our country, you're dumber than I thought.

But as usual you cant stay on topic you have to deflect and talk about some other shit that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The fact that a US Senator had ties to a group and lent her name to a group intent on getting these Terrorists back into the streets and that Kamala Harris made veiled inferences that more violence would occur if Democrats don’t get their way and the best you can say is “well, Kamala didn’t do it directly”? As for your assessment on MTG and Boebert, again, it really doesn’t matter what you think. They are duly elected Congressional representatives and have the same rights as anyone else under consideration for the commission.

 

[Meister]

Fakey is apparently saying that she didn’t post the bail or secure the bail bond.

Oh, so she didn't do it PERSONALLY.
John can call it whatever he wants to make him feel better, but.....

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They will plead out to lesser crimes. It's rare that anyone goes to trial on federal charges anymore.

Which means they will be giving someone higher than themselves up in exchange.

 

[meaner gene]

Whether you have committed a crime at all depends on whether you had (at the time) the mens rea required for the commission of that crime. More precisely, in fact, your prospect of being convicted turns on whether the government can prove that culpable mental state beyond a reasonable doubt.

They purchased a literal arsenal in support of their sedition. And the mens rea standard is if the person is of sound mind, and reason able intellect, whether or not a reasonable person would think what they were doing was wrong.