Trump supporters: What do you think of this information?

[Correll]

Link please.

Feds admit breaking law with delay in case against alleged Jan. 6 rioter

After highly unusual concession from prosecutors, defense tries quick guilty plea

www.politico.com

 

[XponentialChaos]

I talked to many on this site, that supported the "protestors" in different fashioned from supporting their right to block traffic to minimizing their various crimes, to supporting the arrest fo people for running away or defending themselves.

And have you heard me say those things? Or are you just making that up about me?

 

[Correll]

And have you heard me say those things? Or are you just making that up about me?

I've heard you say similar shit, justifying the "protestors" and minimizing their actions.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Feds admit breaking law with delay in case against alleged Jan. 6 rioter

After highly unusual concession from prosecutors, defense tries quick guilty plea

www.politico.com

"In a highly unusual court filing, lawyers from the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the handling of the case against Texas resident Lucas Denney violated his rights under the Speedy Trial Act. Prosecutors said errors and oversights led to Denney sitting in a Virginia jail for weeks last month as he awaited his first court appearance in Washington, D.C.


“There was nothing intentional or nefarious about the delay. It was an isolated incident, unlikely to happen again, and the time frame —while undoubtedly regrettable — is nevertheless not significantly egregious to warrant dismissal with prejudice,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Rozzoni wrote."

===========================

Looks like they made a mistake in an individual case. I never claimed that the legal system doesn't make mistakes.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I've heard you say similar shit, justifying the "protestors" and minimizing their actions.

I want the ones arrested if they commit crimes. Post anything of mine stating otherwise.

Go.

 

[Delldude]

Your point?

Fits into your moniker on the bottom.....LOL

 

[XponentialChaos]

Fits into your moniker on the bottom.....LOL

"I condemn anyone (ANYONE) who commits violence, looting, arson, or destruction."

Did he do any of that? Oh right, he didn't. Man you're slow.

 

[Delldude]

"I condemn anyone (ANYONE) who commits violence, looting, arson, or destruction."

Did he do any of that? Oh right, he didn't. Man you're slow.

On camera.....LOL
We've already discussed this.......

 

[XponentialChaos]

On camera.....LOL
We've already discussed this.......

Right. So you have no evidence whatsoever for this retarded claim of yours. I’m seeing a pattern here with you.

LoL

 

[Delldude]

Right. So you have no evidence whatsoever for this retarded claim of yours. I’m seeing a pattern here with you.

LoL

Looking at your posts here, with others, I can say the same for you.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Looking at your posts here, with others, I can say the same for you.

You mean like when you brought up Ray Epps regarding my signature despite the fact that there is zero evidence of him committing any of that?

Whoops! I noticed you abandoned that sinking ship as well.

 

[Correll]

"In a highly unusual court filing, lawyers from the U.S. Attorney’s Office said the handling of the case against Texas resident Lucas Denney violated his rights under the Speedy Trial Act. Prosecutors said errors and oversights led to Denney sitting in a Virginia jail for weeks last month as he awaited his first court appearance in Washington, D.C.


“There was nothing intentional or nefarious about the delay. It was an isolated incident, unlikely to happen again, and the time frame —while undoubtedly regrettable — is nevertheless not significantly egregious to warrant dismissal with prejudice,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Rozzoni wrote."

===========================

Looks like they made a mistake in an individual case. I never claimed that the legal system doesn't make mistakes.

1. That they admitted.

2. And their response was to request that they just get to start over. Hardly the proper response.

3. The man was so terrorized that he despite this legal leverage that he still pled guilty.

4. Your assumption it was a mistake, is very generous. Unreasonable so.

 

[XponentialChaos]

1. That they admitted.

2. And their response was to request that they just get to start over. Hardly the proper response.

3. The man was so terrorized that he despite this legal leverage that he still pled guilty.

4. Your assumption it was a mistake, is very generous. Unreasonable so.

Ok. So you’ve managed to show that the legal system isn’t perfect and will sometimes commit rare mistakes. We agree on that.

 

[Correll]

Ok. So you’ve managed to show that the legal system isn’t perfect and will sometimes commit rare mistakes. We agree on that.

I showed that federal prosecutors violated a man's civil rights so badly and clearly, by holding him without trial for over a year, that they ADMITTED IT, and asked for their own case to be thrown out,

AND, that despite that, the man ended up pleading.


If that doesn't raise any red flags for you, it is because you actively gathered all the flags together and burned them. ie willful blindness.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I showed that federal prosecutors violated a man's civil rights so badly and clearly, by holding him without trial for over a year, that they ADMITTED IT, and asked for their own case to be thrown out,

AND, that despite that, the man ended up pleading.


If that doesn't raise any red flags for you, it is because you actively gathered all the flags together and burned them. ie willful blindness.

Yup. Mistakes happen sometimes. Like I said.

 

[Correll]

Yup. Mistakes happen sometimes. Like I said.

1. Why do you assume it was a mistake?

2. Their response showed that they didn't care.

3. THe court's response showed that it didn't care.

4. The guy still ended up convicted.


And this is ONE example that has been admitted and noticed. What is going on that we have not seen or been admitted?

AND of course, there is hte violation of Equal Protection Clasuse against all of them.

 

[XponentialChaos]

1. Why do you assume it was a mistake?

2. Their response showed that they didn't care.

3. THe court's response showed that it didn't care.

4. The guy still ended up convicted.


And this is ONE example that has been admitted and noticed. What is going on that we have not seen or been admitted?

AND of course, there is hte violation of Equal Protection Clasuse against all of them.

1. Because it was only a single incident.

2. “Caring” is subjective.

3. Same as #2.

4. Sucks for him. Maybe he shouldn’t have broken the law.

 

[Correll]

1. Because it was only a single incident.

Was it? My understanding is that quite a number of the accused have been held without bail for quite a while. Seems more like part of an terrorizing tactic than a mistake.

2. “Caring” is subjective.

Nope. When the results of a complete violation of an accused rights, is that the accused pleads guilty, that is zero consequences or responsibility. Tell me, exactly why would the prosecutors NOT treat all the accused like that, if the end result is more convictions of their enemies?

4. Sucks for him. Maybe he shouldn’t have broken the law.

Odd. I thought you wanted them prosecuted within the bounds of the law. Violating their civil rights to get pleas, is not that.


Are you now admitting that you support violating the rights of republicans? Or do you want to reconsider your answer on that?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Was it? My understanding is that quite a number of the accused have been held without bail for quite a while. Seems more like part of an terrorizing tactic than a mistake.




Nope. When the results of a complete violation of an accused rights, is that the accused pleads guilty, that is zero consequences or responsibility. Tell me, exactly why would the prosecutors NOT treat all the accused like that, if the end result is more convictions of their enemies?



Odd. I thought you wanted them prosecuted within the bounds of the law. Violating their civil rights to get pleas, is not that.


Are you now admitting that you support violating the rights of republicans? Or do you want to reconsider your answer on that?

1. Then surely you can back up that claim.

2. If they didn’t break a law, then you’re just whining about a ruling that you don’t like.

4. If it was up to me, he would be penalized to the fullest extent of the law. But it’s not up to me and the system isn’t perfect.

No I‘m not stating that I support violating the rights of Republicans. That’s just you lying again as you do so often.

 

[Correll]

1. Then surely you can back up that claim.

Are you serious? You've not heard of the large numbers of accused being held without bail?

2. If they didn’t break a law, then you’re just whining about a ruling that you don’t like.

They did break a law. And even if they didn't clearly break a law and admit it, they would still ahve violated the accused rights. You seem to be completely ok with that. That is quite an escalation.

4. If it was up to me, he would be penalized to the fullest extent of the law. But it’s not up to me and the system isn’t perfect.

No I‘m not stating that I support violating the rights of Republicans. That’s just you lying again as you do so often.

YOu seem fine with the unconstitutional treatment of this one individual. If you are happy with his rights being utterly violated, why not others?