About Those J6 “People”

[Political-Junkie]

A lot was going on that day. We have Ray Epps on film urging protesters to storm the building, yet Ray Epps was not arrested and charged like so many others who did nothing to incite violence like Epps did. That tells us there were operatives in the crowd inciting violence that were protected from arrest by the democrats falsely claiming the mob was incited by Trump. Were doors left open and unguarded? Apparently so. Did guards take selfies with protesters and walk around the Capitol with them while chatting amicably? Apparently so.

Ask PolitiFact: Did Capitol Police let mob of Trump supporte

Question: "Did Capitol Police let a mob of Trump supporters into the building?" Answer: We didn’t find evidence of that.

www.politifact.com

Ryan, who leads the House committee that controls the Capitol Police budget, said he was shocked by some of the images of police interactions with rioters, and would be demanding answers from Capitol Police Chief Steven A. Sund.

"Is that a training issue? I just don’t know," Ryan said. "The Capitol is getting stormed by a mob and you’re taking selfies with, you know, the people. It’s crazy, just crazy."

But the viral, 14-second video clip (#) that some are using to claim that officers willingly let rioters past barricades and into the Capitol is being misrepresented online, said journalist Marcus Diapola, who shot the video.

"They definitely didn't just open the barriers," Diapola told PolitiFact. "The pro-Trump rioters made a fist like they were going to punch the cops, which is why I started recording. Then (police) backed off the barricades.

(#) P.S. Note that democrats hid thousands of videos and destroyed some evidence in an apparent attempt to cover up facts that did not agree with their leftist narratives.

Others were charged after Epps.

 

[Marener]

Trump advised the protesters to remain peaceful. Ray Epp shouted to the crowd to storm the Capitol.

Ray Epps advised the protestors to remain peaceful too. He never said to storm the Capitol, so don't lie.

 

[markef]

Biden beat Trump like T was a sick hound dog.

Nobody can win an election in Russia or in the US under altered pandemic election rules except the crooks controlling the collecting and counting of ballots and the voting machines.

Flashback… Barack Obama in 2008: “I Tell You, It Helps in Ohio that We Got Democrats in Charge of the Machines” (Video)​

3 Comments / Uncategorized

Biden says in video he has created 'voter fraud organization'​

 

[Alweysrite!]

^Projection again

^TDS^

 

[markef]

It is Trump derangement syndrome to thinkg there is such a thing is Islamo-communism in America.

'Communist' Zohran Mamdani becomes New York City's first Muslim mayor

Mr Mamdani surged to victory in the Big Apple - despite Donald Trump's warnings

www.gbnews.com

'Communist' Zohran Mamdani becomes New York City's first Muslim mayor​

 

[jacksonlamb]

^TDS^

^Yes, projection

 

[markef]

False. They are criminals who were rightfully prosecuted. And they're still convicted criminals.

For democrats a wrongful conviction of one of their enemies is as good as a just conviction.

 

[markef]

This is just as false as it was last time you tried peddling it. Flynn's appeal was denied and Sullivan inquiry was allowed to continue. Trump ended the case by pardoning Flynn before Sullivan could rule on dismissing the case.

Setback for Michael Flynn as appeals court denies request to toss his case immediately

The saga of Trump's former national security adviser, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, is likely to drag on for months.

www.nbcnews.com

Here are facts that democrats deny because democrats are wicked and hateful and persecute non-democrats like dogs.

1. 
   
   
   How Judge Emmet Sullivan’s Actions Persecuted Michael Flynn
   Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s handling of the Michael Flynn case drew sharp criticism for what critics called unprecedented intrusions on individual liberty and prosecutorial discretion.
   
   1. Refusal to dismiss charges despite DOJ motion
   After Flynn initially pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI, he sought to withdraw his plea, claiming innocence and alleging coercion. The government then moved to dismiss the case, citing newly discovered evidence of FBI misconduct and a lack of prosecutorial interest. Sullivan, however, refused to grant dismissal, instead appointing a former federal judge, John Gleeson, as a “friend of the court” to argue against the motion The Federalist+1. Gleeson had recently written a scathing op-ed against Flynn, raising concerns about bias The Heritage Foundation.
   
   2. Appointing a biased “friend of the court”
   The D.C. Circuit later found Sullivan’s appointment of Gleeson to investigate dismissal was unusual and potentially unconstitutional, as it effectively allowed a non-attorney to weigh in on prosecutorial decisions and even suggest perjury charges related to Flynn’s plea The Federalist+1. Critics called this a “fundamental abuse” of the judicial process The Federalist.
   
   3. Publicly condemning Flynn without case resolution
   Even after the case was effectively dead, Sullivan issued a lengthy opinion declaring Flynn guilty and condemning him as having “sold his country out” CNBC+1. This was widely seen as a gratuitous political statement, violating judicial restraint principles, since the case was no longer active The Hill.
   
   4. Delaying dismissal despite legal and political pressure
   The government had moved to dismiss for over a year, and the D.C. Circuit had ordered dismissal in a 2-1 vote, but Sullivan continued to block it, citing “many, many more questions” CNBC+1. His actions were described as “obstreperous” and “unpardonable” by critics The Heritage Foundation.
   
   5. Final dismissal only after presidential pardon
   Sullivan finally dismissed the case only after President Trump pardoned Flynn days earlier, which critics argued was an improper political intervention in judicial matters The Heritage Foundation.
   
   Circuit court’s rebuke
   The D.C. Circuit issued a writ of mandamus ordering Sullivan to dismiss the case and vacate his appointment of Gleeson, calling his conduct “unprecedented intrusions on individual liberty and the Executive’s charging authority” The Heritage Foundation. The court emphasized that judges should not override prosecutorial decisions or appoint biased parties to influence case outcomes.
   
   In summary, Sullivan’s refusal to dismiss charges, appointment of a biased “friend of the court,” public condemnation of Flynn without case resolution, and prolonged delays despite legal and political pressure were seen as abuses of judicial power that undermined prosecutorial independence and individual rights The Federalist+2.

 

[markef]

No federal judge ruled that way

Are you stupid or lying

Which federal judge ruled that Hillary was justified to deliberately destroy thousands of government records that had been subpoenaed by Congress? Not one.

 

[Lesh]

Which federal judge ruled that Hillary was justified to deliberately destroy thousands of government records that had been subpoenaed by Congress? Not one.

Why do you think that is?

Oh wait

Derp state amirite?

 

[Lesh]

Here are facts that democrats deny because democrats are wicked and hateful and persecute non-democrats like dogs.

1. 
   
   
   How Judge Emmet Sullivan’s Actions Persecuted Michael Flynn
   Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s handling of the Michael Flynn case drew sharp criticism for what critics called unprecedented intrusions on individual liberty and prosecutorial discretion.
   
   1. Refusal to dismiss charges despite DOJ motion
   After Flynn initially pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI, he sought to withdraw his plea, claiming innocence and alleging coercion. The government then moved to dismiss the case, citing newly discovered evidence of FBI misconduct and a lack of prosecutorial interest. Sullivan, however, refused to grant dismissal, instead appointing a former federal judge, John Gleeson, as a “friend of the court” to argue against the motion The Federalist+1. Gleeson had recently written a scathing op-ed against Flynn, raising concerns about bias The Heritage Foundation.
   
   2. Appointing a biased “friend of the court”
   The D.C. Circuit later found Sullivan’s appointment of Gleeson to investigate dismissal was unusual and potentially unconstitutional, as it effectively allowed a non-attorney to weigh in on prosecutorial decisions and even suggest perjury charges related to Flynn’s plea The Federalist+1. Critics called this a “fundamental abuse” of the judicial process The Federalist.
   
   3. Publicly condemning Flynn without case resolution
   Even after the case was effectively dead, Sullivan issued a lengthy opinion declaring Flynn guilty and condemning him as having “sold his country out” CNBC+1. This was widely seen as a gratuitous political statement, violating judicial restraint principles, since the case was no longer active The Hill.
   
   4. Delaying dismissal despite legal and political pressure
   The government had moved to dismiss for over a year, and the D.C. Circuit had ordered dismissal in a 2-1 vote, but Sullivan continued to block it, citing “many, many more questions” CNBC+1. His actions were described as “obstreperous” and “unpardonable” by critics The Heritage Foundation.
   
   5. Final dismissal only after presidential pardon
   Sullivan finally dismissed the case only after President Trump pardoned Flynn days earlier, which critics argued was an improper political intervention in judicial matters The Heritage Foundation.
   
   Circuit court’s rebuke
   The D.C. Circuit issued a writ of mandamus ordering Sullivan to dismiss the case and vacate his appointment of Gleeson, calling his conduct “unprecedented intrusions on individual liberty and the Executive’s charging authority” The Heritage Foundation. The court emphasized that judges should not override prosecutorial decisions or appoint biased parties to influence case outcomes.
   
   In summary, Sullivan’s refusal to dismiss charges, appointment of a biased “friend of the court,” public condemnation of Flynn without case resolution, and prolonged delays despite legal and political pressure were seen as abuses of judicial power that undermined prosecutorial independence and individual rights The Federalist+2.

Final dismissal only after Presidential pardon

Did you miss that part?

 

[Alweysrite!]

You didn't? Seems you did. You posted an article stating "lack of speedy trials."

It bears repeating, it would be a good idea for you to read what you post. That might help eliminate confusion.


Don't need to. I perfectly ok leaving your unproven claim unproven.

bears repeating, it would be a good idea for you to read what you post. That might help eliminate confusion.

Maybe you should keep track of who you're responding to so you don't look so lost

 

[Alweysrite!]

^Yes, projection

^ severe TDS^

 

[Alweysrite!]

False. They are criminals who were rightfully prosecuted. And they're still convicted criminals.

The political persecution and corrupt officials taints your prosecution. Thus the pardon. You are tainted, dirty.

 

[Alweysrite!]

You're funny. You don't post any evidence to show your claims are true, then pat yourself on the back as though you won anything.

Yet you quote that I used evidence. LOL all you have is ad hominem

 

[Clipper]

What does this deranged gibberish have to do with anything I wrote? LOL Last week you were all screaming that Trump was targeting people that had wronged him. Now you are calling Bolton's guilt justice?

You are mentally ill, pal



I never used that term so why do you have it in quotation marks, doofus?

Btw, there was nothing "deep" about it in the 2024 election. Dims were quite brazen and open about their efforts to take down their greatest political threat in any way possible leading up to the election. In the end, you fools were absolutely and utterly humiliated and destroyed in both the courtroom and at the ballot box!

And about the "crying" bit........it's Mr. President to you, you pathetic bawl baby! America won and the commies obliterated! Much crying indeed!

Where did I say Bolton's guilt, "justice", you pathetic lunatic? Dems were " brazen" in trying to take down Trump? How, by running an opponent against him in that election, you fu**king idiot? Do you not believe in elections?

Any critisism of Trump was well deserved evven though it may hurt your "feels", you Trump humping jackwad.

 

[markef]

What was not fair about their trials?

1. 
   Most January 6 defendants were arrested, charged, and processed through the federal court system, with hundreds pleading guilty and many receiving trials and sentences, demonstrating that the legal system functioned in accordance with due process standards factually.co+2. Key aspects of due process included:
   • Grand Jury Indictments: Charges were brought by grand juries, ensuring impartial review 搜狐.
   • Plea Options: Defendants could plead guilty voluntarily before a judge, safeguarding against coerced confessions 搜狐.
   • Trial by Jury: Those who did not plead guilty had the right to a jury trial, with evidence evaluated beyond a reasonable doubt 搜狐.
   • Appeals: Convicted individuals could appeal, and some convictions were reversed, reflecting the system’s corrective mechanisms 搜狐.
   • Legal Representation: Defendants had access to attorneys to mount a defense 搜狐.
   • Ethical Prosecution: Government prosecutors were bound by professional ethics 搜狐.
   Some defendants were denied bail based on federal judges’ assessments of flight risk or danger to the community, a lawful but sometimes controversial practice factually.co. Reports also documented harsh conditions in D.C. jails, including extended solitary confinement, delayed medical care, and limited access to basic necessities, which raised concerns about humane treatment factually.co+1. Investigations by the U.S. Marshals Service led to some improvements, though disputes over the severity and politicization of these conditions persisted factually.co+1.
   
   Claims that defendants were broadly denied due process have been refuted by legal experts, including University of Alabama law professor Joyce Vance, who emphasized that the defendants received all procedural protections guaranteed under U.S. law 搜狐. However, advocacy groups and some defendants argued that pressure to accept plea deals and prolonged pretrial detention created real due-process concerns factually.co+1.
   
   On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued sweeping pardons and commutations for nearly 1,600 January 6 defendants, citing overcharging, harsh treatment, and alleged denial of due process The White House. This action ended ongoing imprisonment for many and dismissed pending indictments, though it remains a politically charged measure rather than a judicial determination of due process violations The White House.
   
   While the mainstream record shows that January 6 defendants were processed through the federal legal system with access to trials, pleas, and appeals, documented complaints about jail conditions, pretrial detention, and plea pressures indicate that some due-process and humane-treatment issues were real and contested. Overall, the claim that defendants were universally denied due process is inaccurate, though scrutiny of detention practices and jail conditions remains warranted factually.co+2.

Attachments​

 

[jacksonlamb]

^ severe TDS^

^ projection

 

[jacksonlamb]

Mick2 is a Trump humping jackwad.

 

[Alweysrite!]

What was not fair about their trials?

Tainted by democrat politics. Doesn't matter they got the pardon they deserve, suck it traitor LOL