What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The January 6 Prosecutions Hit a Speed Bump

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
25,573
Reaction score
6,558
Points
290
Location
Colorado
The court isn't buying the Dim plan to stage show trials where they prosecute Jan 6 protestors on Trump up charges.

AWWWWWWW! Po witto babies!

The January 6 Prosecutions Hit a Speed Bump

Democrat hopes for show trials a la Stalin's Great Purge are beginning to fade.
Two weeks ago, I wrote of the Department of Justice’s overreach respecting some of the hundreds of January 6 defendants. On Friday the D.C. Circuit clipped the department’s wings. I expect more such losses as time goes on and the Department must actually present evidence in contested trials.
The ploy of keeping in D.C. jails without bail some of the protestors who engaged in no specific violent acts at the Capitol until their cases can be heard was very obviously designed to compel them to plea bargain so they could return home to their families and jobs, and the three-judge panel wasn’t buying it. If you think that there is a partisan tinge to their decision, you’d be wrong, Judge Robert Wilkins was confirmed under Barack Obama; Judge Judith Rogers under Bill Clinton, and Judge George Katsas under Donald Trump. It was bipartisan.
The case made it to the Circuit Court upon appeal from a detention order by Judge Royce Lamberth (a senior judge first appointed to the bench by then-president Ronald Reagan). I mention the judicial appointment history of these judges as an antidote to the all-too-common implications that judges are always using the law to cover their personal political beliefs. Sometimes it appears they do. Other times -- like this one -- they are honestly applying the Constitution and law to the facts.
And they do so here in what was clearly the Department of Justice’s political effort to paint with a broad brush anyone who supported Trump on January 6 and to place unreasonable and unlawful burdens on those protestors in order to bolster overcharged crimes.
Lol you people can’t seem to make up your minds on whether or not they were all secretly ANTIFA or not. I guess it depends on the narrative you’re spewing.
Irrelevant. When compared to the treatment of BLM and Antifa mobs of the past year, Jan. 6 was a minor blip--So if we are to follow the equal protections tenets of the law--NO action at all should be taken.
What is this bullshit treatment you’re referring to? People were obviously arrested. Also, where is the evidence that ANTIFA had anything to do with those summer riots? You don’t have any. Quit pretending that you do.
Where the fuck were you last summer? Under a rock? Antifa rioted every night for over 100 days in Portland and BLM rioted in multiple major cities throughout last year. Please come out of your basement or clean your stomach window.
No, moron, you’re just pretending ANTIFA was involved. It’s just a boogeyman word you use for any protests or rioting you don’t like. This organization barely exists. It has no leadership or organization structure. It simply exists when anecdotal random people decide to call themselves as such.
Right, they don't exist:

iu
Yep. Random people. Tell me, who is the leadership? How many members? Where do their HQ’s operate? Why does the FBI not consider them a threat like they do white supremacist groups who have actual leaders and organizing structure?
HaHaHa, If they don't exist, WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU DEFENDING. You are a moron.
Lol how am I defending anyone? I also never said they didn’t exist. I said they barely exist. It is just random people calling themselves ANTIFA. That’s it. That’s all it is.
Fuck off. Another circular argument troll. You're fucking cancelled.
We both know what I said. Don’t pretend otherwise.
 
OP
bripat9643

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
144,796
Reaction score
33,066
Points
2,180
The court isn't buying the Dim plan to stage show trials where they prosecute Jan 6 protestors on Trump up charges.

AWWWWWWW! Po witto babies!

The January 6 Prosecutions Hit a Speed Bump

Democrat hopes for show trials a la Stalin's Great Purge are beginning to fade.
Two weeks ago, I wrote of the Department of Justice’s overreach respecting some of the hundreds of January 6 defendants. On Friday the D.C. Circuit clipped the department’s wings. I expect more such losses as time goes on and the Department must actually present evidence in contested trials.
The ploy of keeping in D.C. jails without bail some of the protestors who engaged in no specific violent acts at the Capitol until their cases can be heard was very obviously designed to compel them to plea bargain so they could return home to their families and jobs, and the three-judge panel wasn’t buying it. If you think that there is a partisan tinge to their decision, you’d be wrong, Judge Robert Wilkins was confirmed under Barack Obama; Judge Judith Rogers under Bill Clinton, and Judge George Katsas under Donald Trump. It was bipartisan.
The case made it to the Circuit Court upon appeal from a detention order by Judge Royce Lamberth (a senior judge first appointed to the bench by then-president Ronald Reagan). I mention the judicial appointment history of these judges as an antidote to the all-too-common implications that judges are always using the law to cover their personal political beliefs. Sometimes it appears they do. Other times -- like this one -- they are honestly applying the Constitution and law to the facts.
And they do so here in what was clearly the Department of Justice’s political effort to paint with a broad brush anyone who supported Trump on January 6 and to place unreasonable and unlawful burdens on those protestors in order to bolster overcharged crimes.
Lol you people can’t seem to make up your minds on whether or not they were all secretly ANTIFA or not. I guess it depends on the narrative you’re spewing.
What does your post have to do with what I posted? Does it even mention Antifa?
Yeah obviously that is my point. I am referring to your double speak about the riots. You blamed ANTIFA for it before. Now because the narrative on prosecution is in your favor in this one measly article, you pretend you never claimed this to begin with.
I didn't claim that, moron. I'm simply pointing out that your post is a non sequitur.
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
152,586
Reaction score
24,557
Points
2,180
Location
Will.Trade.Racists.For.Refugees
The court isn't buying the Dim plan to stage show trials where they prosecute Jan 6 protestors on Trump up charges.

AWWWWWWW! Po witto babies!

The January 6 Prosecutions Hit a Speed Bump

Democrat hopes for show trials a la Stalin's Great Purge are beginning to fade.
Two weeks ago, I wrote of the Department of Justice’s overreach respecting some of the hundreds of January 6 defendants. On Friday the D.C. Circuit clipped the department’s wings. I expect more such losses as time goes on and the Department must actually present evidence in contested trials.
The ploy of keeping in D.C. jails without bail some of the protestors who engaged in no specific violent acts at the Capitol until their cases can be heard was very obviously designed to compel them to plea bargain so they could return home to their families and jobs, and the three-judge panel wasn’t buying it. If you think that there is a partisan tinge to their decision, you’d be wrong, Judge Robert Wilkins was confirmed under Barack Obama; Judge Judith Rogers under Bill Clinton, and Judge George Katsas under Donald Trump. It was bipartisan.
The case made it to the Circuit Court upon appeal from a detention order by Judge Royce Lamberth (a senior judge first appointed to the bench by then-president Ronald Reagan). I mention the judicial appointment history of these judges as an antidote to the all-too-common implications that judges are always using the law to cover their personal political beliefs. Sometimes it appears they do. Other times -- like this one -- they are honestly applying the Constitution and law to the facts.
And they do so here in what was clearly the Department of Justice’s political effort to paint with a broad brush anyone who supported Trump on January 6 and to place unreasonable and unlawful burdens on those protestors in order to bolster overcharged crimes.
Is that good news for you?
 
OP
bripat9643

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
144,796
Reaction score
33,066
Points
2,180
The court isn't buying the Dim plan to stage show trials where they prosecute Jan 6 protestors on Trump up charges.

AWWWWWWW! Po witto babies!

The January 6 Prosecutions Hit a Speed Bump

Democrat hopes for show trials a la Stalin's Great Purge are beginning to fade.
Two weeks ago, I wrote of the Department of Justice’s overreach respecting some of the hundreds of January 6 defendants. On Friday the D.C. Circuit clipped the department’s wings. I expect more such losses as time goes on and the Department must actually present evidence in contested trials.
The ploy of keeping in D.C. jails without bail some of the protestors who engaged in no specific violent acts at the Capitol until their cases can be heard was very obviously designed to compel them to plea bargain so they could return home to their families and jobs, and the three-judge panel wasn’t buying it. If you think that there is a partisan tinge to their decision, you’d be wrong, Judge Robert Wilkins was confirmed under Barack Obama; Judge Judith Rogers under Bill Clinton, and Judge George Katsas under Donald Trump. It was bipartisan.
The case made it to the Circuit Court upon appeal from a detention order by Judge Royce Lamberth (a senior judge first appointed to the bench by then-president Ronald Reagan). I mention the judicial appointment history of these judges as an antidote to the all-too-common implications that judges are always using the law to cover their personal political beliefs. Sometimes it appears they do. Other times -- like this one -- they are honestly applying the Constitution and law to the facts.
And they do so here in what was clearly the Department of Justice’s political effort to paint with a broad brush anyone who supported Trump on January 6 and to place unreasonable and unlawful burdens on those protestors in order to bolster overcharged crimes.
Is that good news for you?
It's always good when Dims are proven to be full of shit.
 

Rambunctious

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
45,471
Reaction score
30,063
Points
2,605
The court isn't buying the Dim plan to stage show trials where they prosecute Jan 6 protestors on Trump up charges.

AWWWWWWW! Po witto babies!

The January 6 Prosecutions Hit a Speed Bump

Democrat hopes for show trials a la Stalin's Great Purge are beginning to fade.
Two weeks ago, I wrote of the Department of Justice’s overreach respecting some of the hundreds of January 6 defendants. On Friday the D.C. Circuit clipped the department’s wings. I expect more such losses as time goes on and the Department must actually present evidence in contested trials.
The ploy of keeping in D.C. jails without bail some of the protestors who engaged in no specific violent acts at the Capitol until their cases can be heard was very obviously designed to compel them to plea bargain so they could return home to their families and jobs, and the three-judge panel wasn’t buying it. If you think that there is a partisan tinge to their decision, you’d be wrong, Judge Robert Wilkins was confirmed under Barack Obama; Judge Judith Rogers under Bill Clinton, and Judge George Katsas under Donald Trump. It was bipartisan.
The case made it to the Circuit Court upon appeal from a detention order by Judge Royce Lamberth (a senior judge first appointed to the bench by then-president Ronald Reagan). I mention the judicial appointment history of these judges as an antidote to the all-too-common implications that judges are always using the law to cover their personal political beliefs. Sometimes it appears they do. Other times -- like this one -- they are honestly applying the Constitution and law to the facts.
And they do so here in what was clearly the Department of Justice’s political effort to paint with a broad brush anyone who supported Trump on January 6 and to place unreasonable and unlawful burdens on those protestors in order to bolster overcharged crimes.
Lol you people can’t seem to make up your minds on whether or not they were all secretly ANTIFA or not. I guess it depends on the narrative you’re spewing.
Irrelevant. When compared to the treatment of BLM and Antifa mobs of the past year, Jan. 6 was a minor blip--So if we are to follow the equal protections tenets of the law--NO action at all should be taken.
What is this bullshit treatment you’re referring to? People were obviously arrested. Also, where is the evidence that ANTIFA had anything to do with those summer riots? You don’t have any. Quit pretending that you do.
Where the fuck were you last summer? Under a rock? Antifa rioted every night for over 100 days in Portland and BLM rioted in multiple major cities throughout last year. Please come out of your basement or clean your stomach window.
No, moron, you’re just pretending ANTIFA was involved. It’s just a boogeyman word you use for any protests or rioting you don’t like. This organization barely exists. It has no leadership or organization structure. It simply exists when anecdotal random people decide to call themselves as such.
Stop watching CNN stupid.....
 

Lastamender

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
20,502
Reaction score
15,904
Points
2,400
The court isn't buying the Dim plan to stage show trials where they prosecute Jan 6 protestors on Trump up charges.

AWWWWWWW! Po witto babies!

The January 6 Prosecutions Hit a Speed Bump

Democrat hopes for show trials a la Stalin's Great Purge are beginning to fade.
Two weeks ago, I wrote of the Department of Justice’s overreach respecting some of the hundreds of January 6 defendants. On Friday the D.C. Circuit clipped the department’s wings. I expect more such losses as time goes on and the Department must actually present evidence in contested trials.
The ploy of keeping in D.C. jails without bail some of the protestors who engaged in no specific violent acts at the Capitol until their cases can be heard was very obviously designed to compel them to plea bargain so they could return home to their families and jobs, and the three-judge panel wasn’t buying it. If you think that there is a partisan tinge to their decision, you’d be wrong, Judge Robert Wilkins was confirmed under Barack Obama; Judge Judith Rogers under Bill Clinton, and Judge George Katsas under Donald Trump. It was bipartisan.
The case made it to the Circuit Court upon appeal from a detention order by Judge Royce Lamberth (a senior judge first appointed to the bench by then-president Ronald Reagan). I mention the judicial appointment history of these judges as an antidote to the all-too-common implications that judges are always using the law to cover their personal political beliefs. Sometimes it appears they do. Other times -- like this one -- they are honestly applying the Constitution and law to the facts.
And they do so here in what was clearly the Department of Justice’s political effort to paint with a broad brush anyone who supported Trump on January 6 and to place unreasonable and unlawful burdens on those protestors in order to bolster overcharged crimes.
Lol you people can’t seem to make up your minds on whether or not they were all secretly ANTIFA or not. I guess it depends on the narrative you’re spewing.
Irrelevant. When compared to the treatment of BLM and Antifa mobs of the past year, Jan. 6 was a minor blip--So if we are to follow the equal protections tenets of the law--NO action at all should be taken.
What is this bullshit treatment you’re referring to? People were obviously arrested. Also, where is the evidence that ANTIFA had anything to do with those summer riots? You don’t have any. Quit pretending that you do.
Where the fuck were you last summer? Under a rock? Antifa rioted every night for over 100 days in Portland and BLM rioted in multiple major cities throughout last year. Please come out of your basement or clean your stomach window.
No, moron, you’re just pretending ANTIFA was involved. It’s just a boogeyman word you use for any protests or rioting you don’t like. This organization barely exists. It has no leadership or organization structure. It simply exists when anecdotal random people decide to call themselves as such.
Right, they don't exist:

iu
Yep. Random people. Tell me, who is the leadership? How many members? Where do their HQ’s operate? Why does the FBI not consider them a threat like they do white supremacist groups who have actual leaders and organizing structure?
The FBI says white supremacy is a threat. Guess what? It does not matter what they say anymore . No one believes them.
 

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
25,573
Reaction score
6,558
Points
290
Location
Colorado
The court isn't buying the Dim plan to stage show trials where they prosecute Jan 6 protestors on Trump up charges.

AWWWWWWW! Po witto babies!

The January 6 Prosecutions Hit a Speed Bump

Democrat hopes for show trials a la Stalin's Great Purge are beginning to fade.
Two weeks ago, I wrote of the Department of Justice’s overreach respecting some of the hundreds of January 6 defendants. On Friday the D.C. Circuit clipped the department’s wings. I expect more such losses as time goes on and the Department must actually present evidence in contested trials.
The ploy of keeping in D.C. jails without bail some of the protestors who engaged in no specific violent acts at the Capitol until their cases can be heard was very obviously designed to compel them to plea bargain so they could return home to their families and jobs, and the three-judge panel wasn’t buying it. If you think that there is a partisan tinge to their decision, you’d be wrong, Judge Robert Wilkins was confirmed under Barack Obama; Judge Judith Rogers under Bill Clinton, and Judge George Katsas under Donald Trump. It was bipartisan.
The case made it to the Circuit Court upon appeal from a detention order by Judge Royce Lamberth (a senior judge first appointed to the bench by then-president Ronald Reagan). I mention the judicial appointment history of these judges as an antidote to the all-too-common implications that judges are always using the law to cover their personal political beliefs. Sometimes it appears they do. Other times -- like this one -- they are honestly applying the Constitution and law to the facts.
And they do so here in what was clearly the Department of Justice’s political effort to paint with a broad brush anyone who supported Trump on January 6 and to place unreasonable and unlawful burdens on those protestors in order to bolster overcharged crimes.
Lol you people can’t seem to make up your minds on whether or not they were all secretly ANTIFA or not. I guess it depends on the narrative you’re spewing.
Irrelevant. When compared to the treatment of BLM and Antifa mobs of the past year, Jan. 6 was a minor blip--So if we are to follow the equal protections tenets of the law--NO action at all should be taken.
What is this bullshit treatment you’re referring to? People were obviously arrested. Also, where is the evidence that ANTIFA had anything to do with those summer riots? You don’t have any. Quit pretending that you do.
Where the fuck were you last summer? Under a rock? Antifa rioted every night for over 100 days in Portland and BLM rioted in multiple major cities throughout last year. Please come out of your basement or clean your stomach window.
No, moron, you’re just pretending ANTIFA was involved. It’s just a boogeyman word you use for any protests or rioting you don’t like. This organization barely exists. It has no leadership or organization structure. It simply exists when anecdotal random people decide to call themselves as such.
Right, they don't exist:

iu
Yep. Random people. Tell me, who is the leadership? How many members? Where do their HQ’s operate? Why does the FBI not consider them a threat like they do white supremacist groups who have actual leaders and organizing structure?
The FBI says white supremacy is a threat. Guess what? It does not matter what they say anymore . No one believes them.
You only say that because they don’t coddle your political narrative. That’s all that is.
 

Lastamender

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
20,502
Reaction score
15,904
Points
2,400
The court isn't buying the Dim plan to stage show trials where they prosecute Jan 6 protestors on Trump up charges.

AWWWWWWW! Po witto babies!

The January 6 Prosecutions Hit a Speed Bump

Democrat hopes for show trials a la Stalin's Great Purge are beginning to fade.
Two weeks ago, I wrote of the Department of Justice’s overreach respecting some of the hundreds of January 6 defendants. On Friday the D.C. Circuit clipped the department’s wings. I expect more such losses as time goes on and the Department must actually present evidence in contested trials.
The ploy of keeping in D.C. jails without bail some of the protestors who engaged in no specific violent acts at the Capitol until their cases can be heard was very obviously designed to compel them to plea bargain so they could return home to their families and jobs, and the three-judge panel wasn’t buying it. If you think that there is a partisan tinge to their decision, you’d be wrong, Judge Robert Wilkins was confirmed under Barack Obama; Judge Judith Rogers under Bill Clinton, and Judge George Katsas under Donald Trump. It was bipartisan.
The case made it to the Circuit Court upon appeal from a detention order by Judge Royce Lamberth (a senior judge first appointed to the bench by then-president Ronald Reagan). I mention the judicial appointment history of these judges as an antidote to the all-too-common implications that judges are always using the law to cover their personal political beliefs. Sometimes it appears they do. Other times -- like this one -- they are honestly applying the Constitution and law to the facts.
And they do so here in what was clearly the Department of Justice’s political effort to paint with a broad brush anyone who supported Trump on January 6 and to place unreasonable and unlawful burdens on those protestors in order to bolster overcharged crimes.
Lol you people can’t seem to make up your minds on whether or not they were all secretly ANTIFA or not. I guess it depends on the narrative you’re spewing.
Irrelevant. When compared to the treatment of BLM and Antifa mobs of the past year, Jan. 6 was a minor blip--So if we are to follow the equal protections tenets of the law--NO action at all should be taken.
What is this bullshit treatment you’re referring to? People were obviously arrested. Also, where is the evidence that ANTIFA had anything to do with those summer riots? You don’t have any. Quit pretending that you do.
Where the fuck were you last summer? Under a rock? Antifa rioted every night for over 100 days in Portland and BLM rioted in multiple major cities throughout last year. Please come out of your basement or clean your stomach window.
No, moron, you’re just pretending ANTIFA was involved. It’s just a boogeyman word you use for any protests or rioting you don’t like. This organization barely exists. It has no leadership or organization structure. It simply exists when anecdotal random people decide to call themselves as such.
Right, they don't exist:

iu
Yep. Random people. Tell me, who is the leadership? How many members? Where do their HQ’s operate? Why does the FBI not consider them a threat like they do white supremacist groups who have actual leaders and organizing structure?
The FBI says white supremacy is a threat. Guess what? It does not matter what they say anymore . No one believes them.
You only say that because they don’t coddle your political narrative. That’s all that is.
They use Democratic talking points. And they are part of the narrative so many stupid believe after constant repetition.
 

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
25,573
Reaction score
6,558
Points
290
Location
Colorado
The court isn't buying the Dim plan to stage show trials where they prosecute Jan 6 protestors on Trump up charges.

AWWWWWWW! Po witto babies!

The January 6 Prosecutions Hit a Speed Bump

Democrat hopes for show trials a la Stalin's Great Purge are beginning to fade.
Two weeks ago, I wrote of the Department of Justice’s overreach respecting some of the hundreds of January 6 defendants. On Friday the D.C. Circuit clipped the department’s wings. I expect more such losses as time goes on and the Department must actually present evidence in contested trials.
The ploy of keeping in D.C. jails without bail some of the protestors who engaged in no specific violent acts at the Capitol until their cases can be heard was very obviously designed to compel them to plea bargain so they could return home to their families and jobs, and the three-judge panel wasn’t buying it. If you think that there is a partisan tinge to their decision, you’d be wrong, Judge Robert Wilkins was confirmed under Barack Obama; Judge Judith Rogers under Bill Clinton, and Judge George Katsas under Donald Trump. It was bipartisan.
The case made it to the Circuit Court upon appeal from a detention order by Judge Royce Lamberth (a senior judge first appointed to the bench by then-president Ronald Reagan). I mention the judicial appointment history of these judges as an antidote to the all-too-common implications that judges are always using the law to cover their personal political beliefs. Sometimes it appears they do. Other times -- like this one -- they are honestly applying the Constitution and law to the facts.
And they do so here in what was clearly the Department of Justice’s political effort to paint with a broad brush anyone who supported Trump on January 6 and to place unreasonable and unlawful burdens on those protestors in order to bolster overcharged crimes.
Lol you people can’t seem to make up your minds on whether or not they were all secretly ANTIFA or not. I guess it depends on the narrative you’re spewing.
Irrelevant. When compared to the treatment of BLM and Antifa mobs of the past year, Jan. 6 was a minor blip--So if we are to follow the equal protections tenets of the law--NO action at all should be taken.
What is this bullshit treatment you’re referring to? People were obviously arrested. Also, where is the evidence that ANTIFA had anything to do with those summer riots? You don’t have any. Quit pretending that you do.
Where the fuck were you last summer? Under a rock? Antifa rioted every night for over 100 days in Portland and BLM rioted in multiple major cities throughout last year. Please come out of your basement or clean your stomach window.
No, moron, you’re just pretending ANTIFA was involved. It’s just a boogeyman word you use for any protests or rioting you don’t like. This organization barely exists. It has no leadership or organization structure. It simply exists when anecdotal random people decide to call themselves as such.
Right, they don't exist:

iu
Yep. Random people. Tell me, who is the leadership? How many members? Where do their HQ’s operate? Why does the FBI not consider them a threat like they do white supremacist groups who have actual leaders and organizing structure?
The FBI says white supremacy is a threat. Guess what? It does not matter what they say anymore . No one believes them.
You only say that because they don’t coddle your political narrative. That’s all that is.
They use Democratic talking points. And they are part of the narrative so many stupid believe after constant repetition.
Lol I hate to break it up you, but there is a reason so many institutions and groups reject your fantasy perception of reality.
 

Lastamender

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
20,502
Reaction score
15,904
Points
2,400
The court isn't buying the Dim plan to stage show trials where they prosecute Jan 6 protestors on Trump up charges.

AWWWWWWW! Po witto babies!

The January 6 Prosecutions Hit a Speed Bump

Democrat hopes for show trials a la Stalin's Great Purge are beginning to fade.
Two weeks ago, I wrote of the Department of Justice’s overreach respecting some of the hundreds of January 6 defendants. On Friday the D.C. Circuit clipped the department’s wings. I expect more such losses as time goes on and the Department must actually present evidence in contested trials.
The ploy of keeping in D.C. jails without bail some of the protestors who engaged in no specific violent acts at the Capitol until their cases can be heard was very obviously designed to compel them to plea bargain so they could return home to their families and jobs, and the three-judge panel wasn’t buying it. If you think that there is a partisan tinge to their decision, you’d be wrong, Judge Robert Wilkins was confirmed under Barack Obama; Judge Judith Rogers under Bill Clinton, and Judge George Katsas under Donald Trump. It was bipartisan.
The case made it to the Circuit Court upon appeal from a detention order by Judge Royce Lamberth (a senior judge first appointed to the bench by then-president Ronald Reagan). I mention the judicial appointment history of these judges as an antidote to the all-too-common implications that judges are always using the law to cover their personal political beliefs. Sometimes it appears they do. Other times -- like this one -- they are honestly applying the Constitution and law to the facts.
And they do so here in what was clearly the Department of Justice’s political effort to paint with a broad brush anyone who supported Trump on January 6 and to place unreasonable and unlawful burdens on those protestors in order to bolster overcharged crimes.
Lol you people can’t seem to make up your minds on whether or not they were all secretly ANTIFA or not. I guess it depends on the narrative you’re spewing.
Irrelevant. When compared to the treatment of BLM and Antifa mobs of the past year, Jan. 6 was a minor blip--So if we are to follow the equal protections tenets of the law--NO action at all should be taken.
What is this bullshit treatment you’re referring to? People were obviously arrested. Also, where is the evidence that ANTIFA had anything to do with those summer riots? You don’t have any. Quit pretending that you do.
Where the fuck were you last summer? Under a rock? Antifa rioted every night for over 100 days in Portland and BLM rioted in multiple major cities throughout last year. Please come out of your basement or clean your stomach window.
No, moron, you’re just pretending ANTIFA was involved. It’s just a boogeyman word you use for any protests or rioting you don’t like. This organization barely exists. It has no leadership or organization structure. It simply exists when anecdotal random people decide to call themselves as such.
Right, they don't exist:

iu
Yep. Random people. Tell me, who is the leadership? How many members? Where do their HQ’s operate? Why does the FBI not consider them a threat like they do white supremacist groups who have actual leaders and organizing structure?
The FBI says white supremacy is a threat. Guess what? It does not matter what they say anymore . No one believes them.
You only say that because they don’t coddle your political narrative. That’s all that is.
They use Democratic talking points. And they are part of the narrative so many stupid believe after constant repetition.
Lol I hate to break it up you, but there is a reason so many institutions and groups reject your fantasy perception of reality.
The reason is those institutions are corrupt. The stolen election more than proves it.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$142.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top