Another ”insurrection” at Capitol right now

[Catsnmeters]

That works both ways, dumbass.

Agreed.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Capitol, dumbass.

Thanks.

 

[BackAgain]

It has to be seditious conspiracy. People were convicted of it.

So what? People get wrongfully convicted all the time.

Early on trumpers claimed it wasn't insurrection because nobody was charged or convicted of it so logically if they are instead convicted of seditious conspiracy then it must have been seditious conspiracy. You can't have it both ways.

I reject both ways. Clearly not “insurrection” in any world where words have meaning.

And also clearly not “sedition” on that same principle.

Of course I was exaggerating but you have to admit, any little thing will now be insurrection. I have already seen it in a couple threads.

Some people may make such claims. But probably only to underscore the invalidity of the claims made by liberals against the 1/6 protestors. Again, some of them did commit crimes. They should have been prosecuted for those crimes. Only.

For example?

What you just did. You ascribed to an ideological opponent the very thing of which you are actually the guilty individual.

 

[OldFlame]

I can't speak for all independents but the two terms are closely related. I can see where some would try to make that connection.

To be honest, I'm not even sure being an insurrectionist is worse then being a seditious conspirator.



It has to be seditious conspiracy. People were convicted of it. Early on trumpers claimed it wasn't insurrection because nobody was charged or convicted of it so logically if they are instead convicted of seditious conspiracy then it must have been seditious conspiracy. You can't have it both ways.



Of course I was exaggerating but you have to admit, any little thing will now be insurrection. I have already seen it in a couple threads.


For example?

Another leftist 'independent'....

 

[Catsnmeters]

So what? People get wrongfully convicted all the time.

It happens but does that mean you get to pick and choose when someone is wrongly convicted? Is that your arguement?

I reject both ways. Clearly not “insurrection” in any world where words have meaning.

And also clearly not “sedition” on that same principle.

But they were convicted of it because it fit the definition.

That's like saying the people convicted of robbing a bank weren't really involved in a robbery.

Some people may make such claims. But probably only to underscore the invalidity of the claims made by liberals against the 1/6 protestors. Again, some of them did commit crimes. They should have been prosecuted for those crimes. Only.

And they were.

What you just did. You ascribed to an ideological opponent the very thing of which you are actually the guilty individual.

I called it seditious conspiracy because people were convicted of seditious conspiracy.

That is reality, not a false equivalence.

A false equivalence would be saying BLM committed insurrection because someone lit a door on fire on a government building ...and their is a thread on that somewhere around here.

That is a false equivalence.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Another leftist 'independent'....

Well that is kind of true...but it didn't used to be.

Trump has pushed me a little left of center whereas I used to be the opposite.

At least I'm not a Trumper libertarian. That seems to be all the rage these days.

 

[BackAgain]

It happens but does that mean you get to pick and choose when someone is wrongly convicted? Is that your arguement?

OJ won his case. Yet he was the murderer. I do indeed get to pick and choose. But … what I was saying is different. All I was saying is that the fact of a conviction alone isn’t proof that a person did “the” crime. Also, factor in appeals. Appeals matter.

But they were convicted of it because it fit the definition.

Nope. It didn’t.

That's like saying the people convicted of robbing a bank weren't really involved in a robbery

Nope. It’s like saying folks who peaceably purloined a load of bread from a supermarket across the street committed no crime at the bank at all, much less a “robbery.”

And they were.

No. They were prosecuted for crimes that they didn’t commit.

I called it seditious conspiracy because people were convicted of seditious conspiracy.

Circular argument makes no sense. If it wasn’t a seditious conspiracy at all, then a conviction for seditious conspiracy makes no sense.

That is reality, not a false equivalence.

No. It was a false equivalence. The fact remains: of some goober steals a cop’s riot shield and uses it to break in the windows of our Capitol Building, then enters the building without permission at a time not is closed to the public, he can be and should be charged with the criminal mischief to that window and for trespass.

But just because some prosecutors got a grand jury to go along with charging seditious conspiracy doesn’t mean that charge fits. An ensuing conviction on that charge ought to fall on appeal.

 

[Catsnmeters]

OJ won his case. Yet he was the murderer. I do indeed get to pick and choose. But … what I was saying is different. All I was saying is that the fact of a conviction alone isn’t proof that a person did “the” crime. Also, factor in appeals. Appeals matter.

And I agree but nonetheless it's the best system of justice we got. You can't just arbitrarily decide who was wrongfully convicted and who wasn't...especially based on political bias.

That said, the fed has all the cases against the seditious conspirators available on line.

Was their something specific you think the defense, prosecutors, judges and jurors missed? I would be curious to what insight into their cases you have.

Nope. It didn’t.

Again, the prosecutors, judges and jury disagreed with you. What did they miss?

Nope. It’s like saying folks who peaceably purloined a load of bread from a supermarket across the street committed no crime at the bank at all, much less a “robbery.”

Purloined? I had to look that one up. Good word.

Nobody said the seditious conspirators committed sedition at another building.

No. They were prosecuted for crimes that they didn’t commit.

Again, present your case counselor...or copy paste it from a white wing blog or turley/derchowitz, whichever you want.

Circular argument makes no sense. If it wasn’t a seditious conspiracy at all, then a conviction for seditious conspiracy makes no sense.

Why? Which part of this do you think didn't happen?

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

www.law.cornell.edu

No. It was a false equivalence. The fact remains: of some goober steals a cop’s riot shield and uses it to break in the windows of our Capitol Building, then enters the building without permission at a time not is closed to the public, he can be and should be charged with the criminal mischief to that window and for trespass.

The capital was closed for visitors if I remember correctly.

That said, none of those charged with seditious conspiracy simply trespassed. Many trespassed but we're not charged with seditious conspiracy.

I really recommend you read the charges.

But just because some prosecutors got a grand jury to go along with charging seditious conspiracy doesn’t mean that charge fits. An ensuing conviction on that charge ought to fall on appeal.

I suppose we shall see. If the rulings stand will you admit they committed seditious conspiracy? If they win the appeal and the charges are lowered or dropped, I will certainly then admit sedition never happened.

 

[toobfreak]

But of course, this one is “different.”
Somehow.
And besides, it’s directed against the Speaker’s Office. And now the Speaker is a Republican.

Nothing a few shotguns full of rock salt in the ass wouldn't fix in a hurry.

 

[OldFlame]

Well that is kind of true...but it didn't used to be.

Trump has pushed me a little left of center whereas I used to be the opposite.

At least I'm not a Trumper libertarian. That seems to be all the rage these days.

Sure you were... lol amazing how one man can cause you to lose all of your integrity and values....

 

[Catsnmeters]

Sure you were... lol amazing how one man can cause you to lose all of your integrity and values....

It wasn't all Trump. Fiscal responsibility went out the window with Republicans so that didn't help. Then they strike down 50 years of precedent by revoking abortion as a constitutional right. Then they seem to be supporting Russia...even over our own country....but yeah, Trump did play a part.

Ironically, it seems one man caused the entire Republican party to lose all integrity and values.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

There never was an "insurrection" on Jan 6th. Trump is not charged with insurrection and he has not been indicted for insurrection. Whatever is happening today would be the "first" of anything.

 

[BackAgain]

And I agree but nonetheless it's the best system of justice we got.

I’ve been a practitioner and I remain a fan. But what goes along with that is recognition of reality. And the reality is: the system is nevertheless imperfect.

You can't just arbitrarily decide who was wrongfully convicted and who wasn't...

Who said anything about “arbitrarily?”

especially based on political bias.

I don’t limit my choices to any political basis.

That said, the fed has all the cases against the seditious conspirators available on line.

I know.

Was their something specific you think the defense, prosecutors, judges and jurors missed? I would be curious to what insight into their cases you have.

I seriously doubt you seek such insight. And this conversation is getting repetitive.
Also, your post is wicked long.

So, let’s just summarize:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Force is required. Among other things. Nobody who entered the Capitol building had a single gun. Criminal laws are supposed to be interpreted and applied fairly. With no actual force or threat of force inside th Capitol, “Sedition” wasn’t applied or even interpreted fairly.

Again, the prosecutors, judges and jury disagreed with you. What did they miss?

My analysis isn’t controlled by what others may think or claim. Among other things, they permitted some almost religious fervor take over their own analyses.

 

[OldFlame]

It wasn't all Trump. Fiscal responsibility went out the window with Republicans so that didn't help. Then they strike down 50 years of precedent by revoking abortion as a constitutional right. Then they seem to be supporting Russia...even over our own country....but yeah, Trump did play a part.

Ironically, it seems one man caused the entire Republican party to lose all integrity and values.

So democrats are fiscally responsible?

They struck down a wrong interpretation that was allowed to continue for 50 years, and sent the issue back to the states where it belonged.

Supporting Russia?

Have you ever criticized a democrat?

 

[Catsnmeters]

So democrats are fiscally responsible?

No more or less then Repubs...but probably more. Trickle down or supply side economics is a farse.

They struck down a wrong interpretation that was allowed to continue for 50 years, and sent the issue back to the states where it belonged.

It wasn't a wrong decision in my opinion and justifying revocation of 50 years of constitutional precedent under the guise of an opinion is pretty weak.

States already had a lot of leeway as to when the cutoff for abortion was anyway.

Supporting Russia?

Yeah. Remember Helsinki?

Have you ever criticized a democrat?

Yes. In particular over 2nd amendment issues and their stance regulations.

 

[Pete7469]

Sure you were... lol amazing how one man can cause you to lose all of your integrity and values....

Are you suggesting bed wetting leftist drones had integrity or values some time prior to the rise of Trump?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I shouldn't have posted that here. It was the wrong thread.

You would have to know the context of my statement.

In the unlikely event you are curious, this is the thread and the context starts at about post 50 by me and struth...

AOC: No Such Thing as Inflation, It’s Just Propaganda

On recent earnings calls, PepsiCo Chairman and CEO Ramon Laguarta said the company “might have to take additional pricing.” A General Mills executive said the company had gotten “smart about how we look at pricing,” according to the report. PepsiCo’s net income went up by 16.9 percent to nearly...

www.usmessageboard.com

Now that's some funny shit a link from this board is your proof.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Now that's some funny shit a link from this board is your proof.

It isn't proof of anything.

It is the context behind my statement.

Perhaps you should read more and post less so you don't expose yourself as an idiot.

 

[candycorn]

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.

truthsocial.com

But of course, this one is “different.”

Somehow.

And besides, it’s directed against the Speaker’s Office. And now the Speaker is a Republican.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It isn't proof of anything.

It is the context behind my statement.

Perhaps you should read more and post less so you don't expose yourself as an idiot.

So you don't have a source where said white power? All you have is your delusional point of view