Judge Reminds RNC That Riot Was Not 'Legitimate Political Discourse'

[pknopp]

The democrat party isn't the government.

I suppose you have a point as it applies to what I've said but I have no idea what it is.

 

[pknopp]

How about these "protesters"

I generally do not support harming anyone.

 

[bripat9643]

A federal judge took aim at the Republican National Committee’s recent distortion of reality during sentencing for a violent Capitol rioter.

“It is not ‘legitimate political discourse,’” Judge Amy Berman Jackson said during her Thursday sentencing of Mark Leffingwell, who will spend six months in prison for assaulting police at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 last year.

Jackson was referring to the RNC’s description of the riot that left five people dead and more than 140 officers injured as “legitimate political discourse” when the group censured two of their own party members last week for daring to suggest that the Capitol attack was, in fact, an attack.

“So, it needs to be crystal clear that it is not patriotism,” she said. “It is not standing up for America. It is not ‘legitimate political discourse,’ and it is not justified to descend on the nation’s Capitol at the direction of a disappointed candidate and disrupt the national process.”

The RNC censured Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) for participating in the House committee investigating the attack.

Jan. 6 Sentencing Judge Reminds RNC That Riot Was Not 'Legitimate Political Discourse'

"It is not ‘legitimate political discourse,’ and it is not justified to descend on the nation’s Capitol at the direction of a disappointed candidate and disrupt the national process."

www.huffpost.com

I totally agree with Judge Amy Berman Jackson! What do you think?

What did this judge have to say about the BLM riots in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis and Kenosha?

 

[bripat9643]

Apples and onions!

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.

 

[Rigby5]

What did the founders say about an insurrection to overthrow a legitimate presidential election?

Who says any election is at all "legitimate" any more?

For example, political parties are not even supposed to exist, and yet they illegal take over the polling stations to make is seem as if closed primaries are legal.
They are not.

For example, both Hillary and Berine should have been on the 2016 ballots.
To prevent ties needing a run off, you could just have a ranking vote system.

It should be obvious every election in the last century was likely not legitimate.
Butterfly ballots, hanging chads, gerrymandering, media monopolies, etc., preceded the corrupt voting machines, but were no better.
Elections have been totally illegitimate for a very long time.

Not sure how to fix it entirely, but prohibiting private campaign spending, and only fixed and universal government funding might be a start?
Right now it is just whomever has the most money, wins.

 

[BS Filter]

I generally do not support harming anyone.

Yet, BLM/Antifa harmed thousands of citizens and businesses.

 

[Lesh]

A federal judge took aim at the Republican National Committee’s recent distortion of reality during sentencing for a violent Capitol rioter.

“It is not ‘legitimate political discourse,’” Judge Amy Berman Jackson said during her Thursday sentencing of Mark Leffingwell, who will spend six months in prison for assaulting police at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 last year.

Jackson was referring to the RNC’s description of the riot that left five people dead and more than 140 officers injured as “legitimate political discourse” when the group censured two of their own party members last week for daring to suggest that the Capitol attack was, in fact, an attack.

“So, it needs to be crystal clear that it is not patriotism,” she said. “It is not standing up for America. It is not ‘legitimate political discourse,’ and it is not justified to descend on the nation’s Capitol at the direction of a disappointed candidate and disrupt the national process.”

The RNC censured Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) for participating in the House committee investigating the attack.

Jan. 6 Sentencing Judge Reminds RNC That Riot Was Not 'Legitimate Political Discourse'

"It is not ‘legitimate political discourse,’ and it is not justified to descend on the nation’s Capitol at the direction of a disappointed candidate and disrupt the national process."

www.huffpost.com

I totally agree with Judge Amy Berman Jackson! What do you think?

As do I

 

[BS Filter]

This is typical leftist bullshit. They poke and poke and poke, then when the people have had enough and poke back, the left cries and whines about how violent the right is.

 

[Orangecat]

What did the founders say about an insurrection to overthrow a legitimate presidential election?

That would only matter if the election was legitimate.

 

[pknopp]

Yet, BLM/Antifa harmed thousands of citizens and businesses.

I noted, people.

 

[Rigby5]

Apples and onions!

I disagree.
I am far left, do not like Trump, and think the 2020 election likely did not have significant voter fraud, but that does not mean I think occupying congress was a bad idea.
It was a good idea.
Congress NEEDS to be occupied.
Probably on a regular basis.
Congress is the single most corrupt criminals in the whole country.
The murdered half a million innocent Iraqis over WMD lies, in order to gain oil profits.
They incarcerated millions of people an obviously illegal War on Drugs.
You get the idea, and I should not have to list the millions of people they have deliberately and illegally harmed.

The fact the Jan 6 protestors were likely wrong, does not change the fact they were being illegally ignored and deserved the forum they took by force.
That needs to be done, and much more often.

If congress was even remotely legitimate, they would have gone out to the steps of congress, and engaged the crowd directly.
Legislators running away and hiding was the real crime, in my opinion.

 

[Rigby5]

That would only matter if the election was legitimate.

Doesn't matter if the election was legitimate or not.
Even if the protestors were wrong, (and I think they were), they had a right to be heard by Congress.
The legislators were WRONG to leave and not hear what the protestors wanted to say to them.

 

[pknopp]

I disagree.
I am far left, do not like Trump, and think the 2020 election likely did not have significant voter fraud, but that does not mean I think occupying congress was a bad idea.
It was a good idea.
Congress NEEDS to be occupied.
Probably on a regular basis.
Congress is the single most corrupt criminals in the whole country.
The murdered half a million innocent Iraqis over WMD lies, in order to gain oil profits.
They incarcerated millions of people an obviously illegal War on Drugs.
You get the idea, and I should not have to list the millions of people they have deliberately and illegally harmed.

The fact the Jan 6 protestors were likely wrong, does not change the fact they were being illegally ignored and deserved the forum they took by force.
That needs to be done, and much more often.

If congress was even remotely legitimate, they would have gone out to the steps of congress, and engaged the crowd directly.
Legislators running away and hiding was the real crime, in my opinion.

To note, they weren't being ignored. They were heard in the courts. Unfortunately they were unable to make their points valid there. They got recount after recount. No issues found.

 

[Rigby5]

I noted, people.

When conditions are bad or wrong for anyone single individual, and the majority continue to just pay their taxes and ignore it because they are the victim, then they have forfeit their right to be free of violence, riots, arson, looting, etc.
Then violence, riots, arson, looting, etc., become legitimate and necessary, in order to force change the only ways left.

Again, go back to the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution.
There is almost no limit to what becomes legal, if necessary, in order to force political change when government is harming any single individual, illegally.

There is no greater crime than institutional violation of rights, and it can justify almost anything.

 

[Orangecat]

Doesn't matter if the election was legitimate or not.

Try reading the post I responded to, dummy.

What did the founders say about an insurrection to overthrow a legitimate presidential election?

 

[pknopp]

When conditions are bad or wrong for anyone single individual, and the majority continue to just pay their taxes and ignore it because they are the victim, then they have forfeit their right to be free of violence, riots, arson, looting, etc.
Then violence, riots, arson, looting, etc., become legitimate and necessary, in order to force change the only ways left.

Again, go back to the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution.
There is almost no limit to what becomes legal, if necessary, in order to force political change when government is harming any single individual, illegally.

There is no greater crime than institutional violation of rights, and it can justify almost anything.

I support the people's right to protest, even violently if need be. That doesn't mean I have to support every protest.

 

[BS Filter]

The Supreme Court upheld slavery. Violence ended slavery.

 

[Rigby5]

To note, they weren't being ignored. They were heard in the courts. Unfortunately they were unable to make their points valid there. They got recount after recount. No issues found.

I don't agree with the demonstrator's assessment of the election, but the courts are irrelevant.
First of all, the courts are totally corrupt, or else not a single judge or lawyer would ever allow a mandated sentence.
Second is that it does not matter if the courts are not corrupt, as all the matter is the lack of transparency to ensure these demonstrators that there was an attempt to verify.
Just recounting ballots is not good enough if the ballots could be bogus to begin with.
The courts are not intended or capable of dealing with suspicions, but are intended and designed to do nothing unless there is absolute proof.
That is totally backwards when it comes to elections.
Elections are NOT supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but to be assumed guilty until proven innocent.

So again, the point is the demonstrators were totally and completely justified.
They were ignored and still being abused.
The whole system failed them and is therefore failing everyone.

 

[Rigby5]

I support the people's right to protest, even violently if need be. That doesn't mean I have to support every protest.

Yes you do, to some degree.
The point of "freedom of speech" requires you to protect that which you do not agree with.
Disagreeing does not change the fact you do have to support their right to protest.
The only time that changes is if they start killing people,

 

[pknopp]

I don't agree with the demonstrator's assessment of the election, but the courts are irrelevant.
First of all, the courts are totally corrupt, or else not a single judge or lawyer would ever allow a mandated sentence.
Second is that it does not matter if the courts are not corrupt, as all the matter is the lack of transparency to ensure these demonstrators that there was an attempt to verify.

Trump sued and the courts begged him and begged him to bring his evidence to the courts. He brought nothing. Any lack of transparency would have been on the part of Trump.

Just recounting ballots is not good enough if the ballots could be bogus to begin with.
The courts are not intended or capable of dealing with suspicions, but are intended and designed to do nothing unless there is absolute proof.
That is totally backwards when it comes to elections.
Elections are NOT supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but to be assumed guilty until proven innocent.

So again, the point is the demonstrators were totally and completely justified.
They were ignored and still being abused.
The whole system failed them and is therefore failing everyone.

Vote counting (despite the claims of some) are done in a bipartisan manner). If one wants to argue that both parties were out to screw Trump well................